Showing posts with label Treasury. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Treasury. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 2, 2020

BIDEN TRANSITION | Economic Team (Guest Post by Dana Chasin)

The following guest post, on the President-Elect's economic appointments so far, is by Dana Chasin of 20/20 Vision in Washington, D.C.  A fuller list of senior
 Biden appointees, and some contenders for unfilled positions, may be found hereThe list is regularly updated.  

Biden’s intent to gather a progressive coalition, perhaps the most diverse in history, is manifest. Janet Yellen was appointed last week as Treasury Secretary. Yellen would be the first woman to fill this position, if she is confirmed. 

Now Biden has chosen to fill out much of his economic team with five talented, experienced policy advisors and researchers. Several of them would also be historic firsts in their roles. However, confirmation struggles loom. 

Neera Tanden (OMB Director). If confirmed, Neera Tanden would be the first woman of color to head the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in history. Tanden, a longtime Clinton ally and mainstay on cable news, helped found the left-leaning Center for American Progress in 2003 and is its current Chief Operating Officer. Her policy specialty is healthcare, having successfully helped draft the Affordable Care Act and shepherd it through Congress. More recently, her focus has been on the COVID pandemic and its economic fallout. New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy named Tanden to the state’s Restart and Recovery Commission this past April. OMB is a giant executive branch agency, in charge of evaluating performance of federal programs and policies, ensuring they align with the White House’s budget and priorities. Tanden is perhaps the most controversial of nominees put forward by the Biden team so far, never mincing words while critiquing both the right and far left. Her confirmation is no sure thing, and the upcoming Senate fight will be nothing if not engaging; we wish her the best. 

Wally Adeyemo (Deputy Treasury Secretary). Biden has announced his intention to nominate Obama Foundation president and economist Adewale “Wally” Adeyemo to be deputy secretary of the Treasury Department. Under President Obama, Adeyemo served as deputy director of the National Economic Council, assistant secretary for International Markets and Development at Treasury (as well as deputy chief of staff of the Treasury), and chief of staff of the newly formed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under the leadership of Elizabeth Warren. When Adeyemo left the White House in 2016, he signed on as a senior adviser at the investment firm BlackRock, as well as at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Adeyemo, a 39-year old Nigerian-born attorney with impeccable academic credentials to match his wealth of expertise, will likely sail through the Senate confirmation and become the first African American Deputy Secretary of the Treasury. 

Cecilia Rouse (Chair, Council of Economic Advisors). The Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) is a three-person team tasked with providing data and advice to the president on domestic and international economic matters. The agency produces the annual Economic Report of the President, which assesses the state of the economy and outlines economic goals for the coming year. Cecilia Rouse would be the fourth woman and first Black woman to serve as Chair of the CEA. Currently dean of the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs, Rouse is well-known for her work on labor economics, education, and workplace discrimination. In a renowned paper with Claudia Goldin, Rouse showed that employers were more likely to hire women applicants when the applicants were judged "blind", i.e., without knowledge of the applicants’ genders. During the Clinton presidency, Rouse served on the National Economic Council. Later, as a member of President Obama’s CEA, she advocated for increased fiscal stimulus in the wake of the 2008 recession. While her past confirmation to the CEA occurred in 2009 when Democrats controlled the Senate, Rouse’s previous experience in presidential administrations should smooth her path to confirmation, although conservative Republican Senators are sure to oppose her nomination. 

Jared Bernstein (Member, CEA). Biden has also nominated the other members of his CEA. Jared Bernstein, currently a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning fiscal policy think tank, has been a prominent economic advisor for Biden for years. Bernstein was chief economist to Vice President Biden from 2009-2016 and played a major role in crafting the $800 billion economic rescue package in 2009. During the campaign, he continued to serve as one of Biden’s top economic advisors. A longtime defender of the working and middle class and advisor to 20/20 Vision, Bernstein is also a known critic of free trade agreements, and he will refocus U.S. trade policy to benefit workers and balance trade relations. Further, throughout the pandemic, Bernstein has advocated for increased deficit spending, particularly on enhanced unemployment benefits. Bernstein’s nomination is a concrete indication of Biden’s commitment to smart, focused policymaking. 

Heather Boushey (Member, CEA). Long-time advisor to President-elect Biden, Heather Boushey will serve as another member of Biden’s CEA. Boushey is currently the president and chief executive of the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, a nonprofit she co-founded in 2013. Boushey is best known for her 2019 book, Unbound, in which she identifies the ways that economic inequality undermines economic growth. During the COVID-19 crisis, Boushey has advocated for automatic stabilizers — both for unemployment benefits and state and local aid. Prior to heading the Washington Center, Boushey served as an economist for the Center for American Progress, the Joint Economic Committee, the Center for Economic and Policy Research, and the Economic Policy Institute. Boushey would have served as Chief Economist for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 transition team. At the CEA, Boushey will continue to push for policies that will facilitate an inclusive post-COVID economic recovery. 

Summary.  In strong contrast to the previous administration, Biden’s economic team is characterized by expertise, diversity, and inclusive economic policies. While Biden was perhaps the most moderate of the Democratic presidential candidates during the primary, his nominees are committed to addressing economic inequality and protecting the most vulnerable Americans. Their confirmations will also be among the first tests of Mitch McConnell’s obstructiveness should Republicans keep control of the Senate. If they are confirmed, come 2021, we can expect Biden’s White House to put forward a large relief and stimulus package, which will be crucial to keeping small businesses, states, and families — that is, the economy — afloat until the virus is under control.

Friday, June 5, 2020

JOB NUMBERS | May Unemployment 13.3% (16.3%?)

June 5, 2020—Total nonfarm payroll employment rose 2.5 million in May, and the unemployment rate declined to 13.3 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported this morning.

However, the BLS includes a note by BLS Commissioner Beach noting that some misclassification occurred, making the unemployment number as reported 3 percentage points lower than it would otherwise have been:
If the workers who were recorded as employed but absent from work due to "other reasons" (over and above the number absent for other reasons in a typical May) had been classified as unemployed on temporary layoff, the overall unemployment rate would have been about 3 percentage points higher than reported (on a not seasonally adjusted basis). Additional information is available online at www.bls.gov/cps/employment-situation-covid19-faq-may-2020.pdf.
(June 6 —See WaPo story, 11 am.)

The principal unemployment rate (U-3) is lower than many economists expected. The BLS warned in a May correction that because its survey is a sample of households during a specific period, unemployment claims data will not necessarily match up to the unemployment numbers. However, the BLS also reports different unemployment rates using a range of definitions.  U-6 is the broadest definition, taking into account those marginally attached to the labor force, including total employed part time for economic reasons. This rate was 20.7 percent, more in line with economists' expectations.

Forecasts had been for as high as 25 percent. The unemployment rate was 25 percent (or a smidgeon above) at its peak in the Great Depression. This rate occurred in the early months of 1933. Most economic observers dismiss the idea that we are in a Depression, because they expect the economy to recover quickly as soon as coronavirus cases level off or a vaccine is developed that would allow the public to resume a normal life.

But the following are examples of people who have gone on record as fearing that the May 2020 unemployment number announced this morning could be as high as 25 percent:
One of the backdrops to this was a 48 percent increase in bankruptcies in May.

Consensus: 20 percent. Most commentators, if they gave a projected unemployment number, were close to CNN's Anneken Tappe, who thought the rate will be most likely about 20 percent. Which is bad enough, and off the April chart.

To understand what is happening, behind the unemployment number itself, look at U-6 as well as U-3. U-6 is 20.7 percent. It includes people who are not in the unemployment numbers because they are marginally attached to the labor force or are employed part time for economic reasons.

Measure
Apr.  
2019 
Feb.
2020
Mar.
2020
Apr.
2020
May 2020
U-3 Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate)3.63.54.414.7
13.3
U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force7.37.08.722.8
20.7

The number that is ordinarily reported is U-3. In 1933, that was the only number available. But U-6 provides details (insofar as any sample of 50,000 households in the U.S. economy can provide details) of people who are neither employed nor unemployed, an interesting group of potential workers.

The level of U-6 unemployment is important to look at because of the number of Americans who are on the Payroll Protection Plan and other special programs that are keeping workers off the unemployment rolls.

(Hat tip to Dr. Jurgen Brauer, Geoffrey Hilton and Dr. Farid Heydarpour for their assistance with this post!)

Thursday, September 10, 2015

WOODIN | FDR's Last Letters to His Friend Will, 1934

This post has been moved to a private blog. To gain access, contact jtmarlin@post.harvard.edu.


Wednesday, June 24, 2015

THE FED | Moral Hazard

Paul Volcker
Wall Street on Parade in recent years has been playing the role that the Pecora Committee played in 1933.

Ferdinand Pecora was hired as general counsel to the Senate Banking Committee to investigate the causes of the 1929 Crash. His hearings in 1933 revealed many practices that tilted the financial marketplace against small investors. He laid the groundwork of public opinion to ensure passage of the Securities Acts of 1933 and 1934.

In the process, the testimony that Pecora extracted injured the reputations of many Wall Street leaders and their friends. Some practices were illegal. Others were attacked with the benefit of hindsight, in the new light of the Crash of 1929. What seemed normal in 1929 had become unethical or unfair... and with the new laws would become illegal.

Today's installment of Wall Street on Parade by Pam Martens and Russ Martens looks at the Latin American financial crisis of the early 1980s and cites from the transcript of the FOMC meeting of June 30, 1982 to examine why the Fed approved a loan to Mexico of $700 million. Mexico owed U.S. banks $21.5 billion. The Fed bailed out Mexico to bail out the banks that had loaned money to Mexico.

In an interview published in the fall of 2013, Harvard Professor Martin Feldstein asked former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker whether the high interest rates of the early 1980s caused debt problems in emerging economies. Volcker responded that U.S. bank loans were of great concern to his predecessor as Fed Chairman in the 1970s:
Arthur Burns, to his credit, was the Paul Revere on this thing. He'd go around and make speeches: "This can't continue. ... We've got to do something about it." The borrowing continued until the winter [1981-82] when a couple of banks stopped lending. Mexico ran out of money. What do you do? [my emphasis]... The big US banks and some of the big foreign banks had more exposure to Latin America than they had capital. It wasn't something you could just say: "Okay, knock off the loans by 50 percent or something and everybody will be happy." They all would have been bust. You look for other approaches, and it took nearly a decade until Mr. Brady [Nicholas Brady, Treasury Secretary, 1988-1993] came along and settled them [Brady bonds replaced Latin American debt, paying lower rates or reducing the face value, but with greater certainty of repayment].  (Martin Feldstein, "An Interview with Paul Volcker, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27:4, Fall 2013, pp. 112-113.)
Wall Street on Parade argues that the too-big-to-fail attitude, on view in 1982, was behind the Fed and Treasury response to the financial crisis of 2007-2009.

These issues go back to the earliest years of the Fed. Founded in 1913, the Fed published a statement of its policy intentions in 1924, in its Tenth Annual Report in 1924. It announced that it would seek to encourage "productive" loans and discourage "speculative" ones. As loans to purchase securities rose the following year, the Fed tightened money. Benjamin Strong in 1927 complained about the tightening. Concerns about productive lending were shelved that year in favor of expansionary monetary policy - the Fed purchased government securities to add to liquidity.

When the Fed tightened again in 1928, it created the disastrous crisis of 1929-30, and the expansion of 1927 was viewed as the root cause. When banks started to fail, the Fed often refused to lend to them. Not until April 1932 did it expand the money supply, and this ended by August. Julio Rotemberg, "Shifts in US Federal Reserve Goals and Tactics for Monetary Policy: A Role for Penitence?", Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27:4, Fall 2013, 67-69.

Thus a "too-big-to-fail" attitude emerged from the panics caused by a tough line on the banks in 1929-32, which was motivated by a reaction to the expansion of 1927. The "too-big-to-fail" idea creates moral hazard, as Wall Street on Parade notes. As long as that is not addressed, speculative lending will grow and the global financial structure remains shaky.

Friday, May 22, 2015

WOODIN | 11. FDR's Election, 1932 and Cabinet Picks (Updated Oct. 8, 2015)

FDR's biggest challenge was at the Democratic Convention.
Hoover campaigned in 1928 on the theme of prosperity, but in the next four years he saw this platform  collapse under him.

In fact, the crash of 1929 created huge animus against the Hoover Administration.

For his part, FDR had two fewer obstacles to overcome to win the Democratic nomination than confronted Al Smith:

(1) The anti-Prohibition stance of Democrats in big cities was no longer such a negative. City voters were growing fast and so was the evidence of gangsterism created by Prohibition.

(2) FDR was not a Catholic.

However, FDR had two new - big -  problems in the run-up to the Democratic convention in Chicago at the end of June 1932.
  • In addition to his decade-long struggle with leg paralysis caused by his 1921 bout with polio, FDR was burdened with a huge debt from the Warm Springs, Ga., foundation that he created while there for rehabilitation.
  • Democrats in the west and south opposed the nomination of another New Yorker, after two losses by Al Smith in the general election.
Will Woodin was to play a big role in addressing the first problem and a significant role in addressing the second.

FDR's Warm Springs Problem and Woodin's Response

During 1926-28, before he was elected Governor of New York,  FDR spent half his time in Warm Springs. While regaining his health, he came to dream of sharing the restorative powers of the hot springs.

In 1926 he committed about $200,000, two-thirds of his liquid assets, to buy from George Foster Peabody the old Merriwether Hotel in Warm Springs to house a new rehabilitation center. He ended up buying nearly 3,000 acres.

After his reelection as Governor in 1930, FDR's circle of supporters turned their minds to the possibility of his running as President and the Warm Springs charity loomed as a giant albatross.

It wasn't just that FDR had ran through his bank account buying the hotel and land and then renovating the properties. The center itself was operating at a significant annual deficit because FDR arbitrarily set a weekly rate for treatment of $42, which was below his costs. On top of that he accepted patients regardless of their ability to pay. The cumulative debt in 1930 was more than the Roosevelt family could handle and precluded FDR from undertaking the expense of a campaign for the Democratic nomination and then a national campaign for the presidency. Until this matter was settled, FDR could simply not take on running for prresident.

At this juncture, Will Woodin stepped in, urged on by John J. Raskob, Chairman of the National Democratic Committee. Raskob was a businessman like Woodin. He was Vice President of both General Motors and DuPont, and champion of the idea that "Everyone Ought to Be Rich". He was prepared to put up money to support FDR's run for Governor, but not to raise money to pay off the debt.

Woodin agreed to chair the Finance Committee of the Warm Springs Board and raise money to pay off the debts. He got a commitment first from Raskob that was fulfilled. He then chipped in a substantial amount himself and went raising money by launching a public relations program pointing out the devastation caused by polio, and urging support of preventive action and rehabilitation. It worked.

Woodin's taking onto himself the burdens of the Warm Springs finances was a significant contribution  - understood by everyone who knew about the situation - to FDR's willingness to run and his electability.

FDR's Strategy for the 1932 Convention

With the Warm Springs debt addressed, FDR hastened to position himself as the champion of Main Street and the ordinary working person against Wall Street. The financial crisis caused a sea change in American electoral politics. From being viewed as the engine of the economy and the creator of wealth, Wall Street had now become a pariah. FDR was intently focused on making sure (1) the blame fell on Hoover, (2) there was a plan to fix the problem, and (3) there was a person he could put in Treasury who could take care of this while he focused on delivering the overall message.

The shift in national psychology from 1928 to 1932 was astonishing. The turnaround in the election returns has never been equalled. The Democrats went to their convention looking for a candidate who could make full use of the opportunity that economic misery offered to them.  They succeeded in finding the right person.

Treasury Secretary Andrew W. ("Andy") Mellon was too good a target not to include in the assault that the Democrats prepared on the Republicans in 1932. In addition, FDR came to have an intense personal dislike for Mellon.

So in a chant that the Democrats made a theme song during the campaign, Mellon was portrayed as co-driver in the train wreck engineered by Hoover:
Mellon pulled the whistle / Hoover rang the bell
Wall Street gave the signal / And the country went to hell.
Republicans Join the Attack on Hoover

It got worse for Hoover, as the outcry of the Democrats was joined by maverick Republicans:
  • In the Senate, outgoing Republican Chairman of the Banking Committee, Sen. Peter Norbeck (S.C.), found New Yorker Ferdinand Pecora to become the General Counsel to the Committee to investigate the 1929 collapse. This is the man who was called "The Hound of Wall Street."
  • In the House, Republican Chairman of the Banking Committee, Rep. Louis Thomas McFadden (Pa.), moved to impeach Hoover in 1932 and thereby induced Mellon to resign within days.
The Pecora Committee.  The Committee that was created by Senate Resolution 84, introduced March 2, 1932, authorized the Committee on Banking and Currency to investigate “practices with respect to the buying and selling and the borrowing and lending” of securities.

During the first 11 months of its work, the Committee got little done as banking executives refused to produce bank records and evaded questions. In early 1933, at his wits end because of the stalling of banks and securities firms, Committee Chair Sen. Norbeck made what he called a "happy discovery" and hired a new chief counsel, former New York deputy district attorney Ferdinand Pecora.

Pecora ensured he would be kept on by the Democrats by going right to work using the Committee's subpoena power and the glare of publicity. The results were swift and momentous, and they reached  unexpected places.

The Impeachment Resolution. Meanwhile, in early 1932 Republican Rep. McFadden was creating havoc in the House. Born in Bradford County, Pa., he graduated from a commercial college in Elmira, N.Y. and worked his way up to be president of the First National Bank in Canton, Pa. In 1914, McFadden was elected from Pa. to the 64th Congress and he was reelected to the nine succeeding Congresses, chairing the House Committee on Banking and Currency from 1920 to 1931.

His main banking legacy was passing the McFadden Act of 1927, limiting federal branch banks to the city in which the main branch operates. McFadden was a sworn enemy of the Federal Reserve, which was run, he said, by Jewish banking interests who controlled the USA and deliberately caused the Great Depression.

When McFadden moved to impeach President Herbert Hoover in 1932, he also introduced a charge of conspiracy against the Fed, whose Chairman ex officio was the Treasury Secretary. (The following year, in late May, as Pecora's investigation for the Senate was hitting its crescendo, he introduced House Resolution No. 158, calling for impeachment of Treasury Secretary Woodin, two assistant Secretaries, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, and the officers and directors of its twelve regional banks. In 1934, Drew Pearson reported in his column that McFadden had been "extensively" quoted "in support of Adolf Hitler".)

The GOP was in a corner nationally. Even within the GOP, Hoover was isolated. A joke told at the time was that Hoover asked Mellon's replacement as Treasury Secretary, Ogden Mills, to lend him a nickel to buy a soda for a friend. Mills is said to have replied laconically: "Here's a dime. Treat all of them."

The June GOP and Democratic  Conventions

To be fair, Hoover was hamstrung by the small-government orientation of his party in the face of a huge crisis. He had experimented with some public-works initiatives, but they were too isolated and tentative to have much impact on the economy.

The Republican convention in Chicago in mid-June 1932 had a six-point economic program. Point 3 was: "To stand steadfastly by the principle of a balanced budget."  Point 4 was: "To devote ourselves fearlessly and unremittingly to the task of eliminating abuses and extravagance and of drastically cutting the cost of government so as to reduce the heavy burden of taxation." In short, the GOP was committed to cutting spending despite a 25 percent unemployment rate, which has to be viewed with hindsight as a strategic error as well as a humanitarian failure.

The editors of the New Republic published a scathing editorial lacerating Herbert Hoover’s defense of his administration, on October 19, 1932:
Hoover’s claim to credit for a large public-works program is wholly false. Public works have greatly contracted during the depression. He has fought every measure which really would have led to a net expansion. If he had wanted at all costs to aid the unfortunate and increase prices, he would have enlarged governmental expenditures and would have borrowed the money with which to do so. Thus he would have risked further depreciation of bond prices and injured the creditor class. What he really did was to try to save the capitalist system by saving the creditors at the expense of the population at large, letting the devil take the hindmost.
However, the Democratic convention later that month, also in Chicago, followed the GOP line on the balanced budget, and FDR embraced the convention's platform. For years FDR would pay lip service to the balanced-budget program by presenting the Congress with deficit-free budgets - but he then added emergency funding to address unemployment, a practice that more recent Presidents have used to finance military spending. As FDR said in a campaign speech in Pittsburgh in 1936, the year that John Maynard Keynes published his game-changing General Theory:
To balance our budget in 1933 or 1934 or 1935 would have been a crime against the American people. ... [W]e should have had to set our face against human suffering with callous indifference. 
For this decision to spend government money when private money was scarce, Keynes hailed FDR as a "Trustee for those in every country who seek to mend the evils of our condition by reasoned experiment within the framework of the existing social system." In his Open Letter to FDR in December 1933, Keynes said:
[I]n the first stage of the technique of recovery I lay overwhelming emphasis on the increase of national purchasing power resulting from governmental expenditure which is financed by loans and not by taxing present incomes.
The two leading candidates at the Democratic convention were FDR and former NY Governor Al Smith. FDR's staff spoke privately to the next-leading candidate, John Nance "Cactus Jack" Garner, Speaker of the House, offering him the Vice Presidency in return for his support of FDR; he agreed. At the next ballot, FDR won the nomination.

The 1932 General Election

It was a terrible year to raise money for FDR's campaign. The Democrats had a considerable deficit when the election rolled around. Frank Walker, treasurer of the Democratic National Committee, did the best he could. The DNC spent about $2.2 million, or $500,000 less than the Republicans.

FDR's top two supporters (both contributing money and asking others for money) were John J. Raskob, banker and automobile manufacturer (GM), who served as Chairman of the DNC, and Will Woodin. Other major donors were Bernard Baruch, financier; Vincent Astor, Chase National Bank; William Randolph Hearst, newspaper publisher; R. W. Morrison, of San Antonio, Texas; M. L. Benedum, Pittsburgh oil and gas operator.

The anti-Wall Street mood in the country produced the numbers that FDR hoped for. In the general election in November, the election returns turned the 1928 numbers upside down. The victory this time went Democratic, with FDR capturing 57.4 per cent of the votes to Hoover's 39.7 percent; the electoral college split 472-59. In Suffolk County, N.Y, where Woodin had a summer home since 1912, Hoover beat FDR, by fewer than 10,000 votes - a sharp drop from 1928 when Hoover carried the county by more than 21,000 votes.

Nationally, the GOP was ahead by 50 in 1928 on the Real Clear Politics index of party support at the polls. Most of the time, 60 percent, the index varies between plus and minus 30 points. By 1936, the GOP score dropped down to -119, a plunge of 169 index points. This is the largest shift in the electoral winds on the RCP chart covering 1928-2012.

The election may be said to have hinged on Hoover's tentativeness in dealing with the stock-market crash, the bank panics and unemployment. A major crisis requires a major response. His efforts to encourage employment, limited by members of his own party, didn't have much effect. The editors of the New Republic in October 1932 summed it up with an astonishingly 21st-century view of Hoover's error (a theme we return to in the last chapter):
Hoover believed he was a wholly innocent man pursued by fate. But the origins of the Crash of 1929 were interwoven with his own past. He led the country up the mountain of unbridled capitalism and to the brink of the precipice, and he took credit for the ascent. … [H]is defense of “sound money” [and] balancing the budget was a bankers’ policy, pursued in the interest of financial institutions—our great creditors. … It is either disingenuous or stupid to represent this course as being in the immediate interest of debtors, farmers, and the unemployed. On the contrary, it shifts to them a major part of the losses of the [D]epression. [T]he rigid economy necessary to produce a balanced budget limits governmental expenditures at the very time when it is most necessary to expand them as a means of unemployment relief. [D]irect aid to debtors and a really adequate program of public works … may create employment [and] put money in circulation. “Traitor to his class” Roosevelt tempered his objectives with the spirit of compromise. Friends and enemies alike had to admit that FDR was a political genius.
During the interim between November and March, Hoover wanted FDR to sign on to every significant move he considered making. FDR refused to take on his responsibilities prematurely. The Depression  changed public opinion about Hoover's understanding of the economy and his ability to fix things.  Voters were disappointed in Hoover. FDR's actions in New York State showed that more could be done for the economy than Hoover was willing to do.

The Exiting Treasury Secretary

It is interesting to speculate what might have happened if Andrew Mellon had not been so exasperated with attempts by Rep. McFadden and Wright Patman and other to impeach him starting in January 1932 and had stayed on. I speculate that a likely outcome is that President Hoover might have taken some of the actions that FDR and Woodin took a year after Mellon resigned.

Instead, after Mellon resigned in February 1932, Ogden L. Mills took over until a year later, when on March 5, 1933, FDR took over with Will Woodin at the helm of the Treasury him. (Hoover meanwhile sent Mellon to London as U.S. Ambassador for the remainder of his term.)

Under the 1913 Federal Reserve Act, the Treasury Secretary was also ex officio chairman of the Federal Reserve Board (later, the law was changed to provide for an independent Chairman). Mills was therefore at the top of the two institutions that were supposed to be addressing bank panics. Mills was a competent lawyer but was part of a system that was not equipped to address the problems it faced.

Born in 1884 in tony Newport, R.I., Mills graduated from Harvard College in 1904 and Harvard Law School in 1907. He was a loyal delegate to the Republican National Conventions of 1912, 1916, and 1920, having won election to the New York state senate in 1914. He resigned in 1917 to enlist in the US Army and was discharged with the rank of captain. Starting in 1921, Mills won three successive elections to the US House of Representatives. In 1926, he ran on the GOP ticket against incumbent Al Smith for Governor of New York and was defeated.

In 1927, President Calvin Coolidge appointed Mills undersecretary of the Treasury, where he served under Andrew Mellon. Since Mellon spent much of his time in Europe, President Hoover came to rely heavily on Mills, who was faithful to the GOP Hard Money cause.

This background meant that in the midst of the financial panic and high levels of unemployment, Mills kept calm and called for a balanced Federal budget. As more banks closed and workers became unemployed, tax revenues fell, so a balanced budget meant swift deep cuts in government spending and higher tax rates.

After his retirement from the Treasury, Mills attacked FDR's policies in several books that did nothing to stop FDR's massively one-sided reelection in 1936. Mills died the following year in New York City.


Picking the Cabinet

The cabinet short list as of December 9 included Senator Carter Glass or Bernard Baruch as Treasury Secretary. Will Woodin was listed as a probable Commerce Secretary - the job that Hoover had filled.

Biographies of Carter Glass say he was offered the job of Treasury Secretary and turned it down. A widely reported AP story on February 21, 1933 reports just that.

But a frequently cited tale suggests that FDR was still wondering whether Glass or Woodin would be a better choice. Some advisers to FDR urged him to keep Glass in the Senate where his seniority was important. Either FDR's staff made their recommendation or Glass took himself out, but in the end a message went to FDR from his staff saying that "a wooden frame for the swimming pool is preferred to a glass one" (the Warm Springs center had under way a glass-enclosed swimming pool).

Woodin was offered the job. He had already been working closely with FDR in February. He was perfect for the position – a Republican, a Main Street business executive of prominence, a friend of FDR – someone who could be trusted with the huge job of making sure that FDR's remedies for the financial disaster and the bank panics would work. He was not from the banks or Wall Street, but he knew them and vice versa, all the better to take them on.

Another person who would be on FDR's team was Joe Kennedy, who Kennedy graduated from Harvard in 1912 announcing a plan to earn a million dollars by 32. Within 20 years, he headed a bank that he rescued, managed a major Boston shipyard, and helped facilitate the merger of RKO, salvaging the U.S. film industry. He was known as a bloodless investor. But FDR is his match. When FDR was Assistant Secretary of the Navy in 1917, Kennedy refused to release ships his private shipyard had built until the government had paid for them. FDR sent in the Marines, earning Kennedy’s respect and, in 1932, his support – and brought with him William Randolph Hearst.

Kennedy hoped to be appointed Secretary of the Treasury and was disappointed when Woodin got the job. But FDR put Kennedy on the team to head the Securities and Exchange Commission, with FDR commenting in private: “Set a thief to catch a thief.” (Kennedy does an excellent job.)

In the meantime, Hoover was as panicked as the banking system he was supposed to calm. He begged FDR to join with him in supporting certain measures that would stem the panic. Ogden Mills could not bring himself to deviate from the balanced-budget orthodoxy, and after the election in 1932 he was no more eager or willing than Hoover to take strong action.

However, FDR was become by this time a consummate politician and was not going to dilute the impact of his presidency by allowing Hoover to take his share of credit for any employment-creating or panic-reducing measures that might be introduced during the months before Inauguration. In the immortal words of a later era, FDR let Hoover "twist slowly in the wind" while instructing Woodin and other members of the Cabinet to be ready to take action on the day FDR took charge.

Harding was weak and had a strong cabinet that included Herbert Hoover and Andrew Mellon. Hoover was strong and had a weak cabinet except for Andrew Mellon. FDR was a strong President but he had a broad agenda, so he needed strong, detail-oriented managers in his Cabinet, and Will Woodin exactly filled the bill. It was a good match in many ways. Unfortunately, powerful forces unleashed to solve one big problem may create other ones. That is a story for the next chapter.

Notes

Data on GOP Strength 1928-2016: Real Clear Politics Blog http://bit.ly/1SkadCq.

Warm Springs Purchase, 1926: Jean Edward Smith, FDR, New York: Random House, 2007, pp. 208-217.

Warm Springs Pub,ic Relations: Disability Museum, http://disabilitymuseum.org/dhm/lib/detail.html?id=942

Raskob: "Everyone Ought to Be Rich," Ladies Home Journal, August 1929.

Balanced Budget: FDR Library, http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/aboutfdr/budget.html.

Keynes: Open Letter to President Roosevelt

1924 and 1928 Conventions: FDR Library.

1928 Election: Paul F. Boller, Jr., Presidential Campaigns (Oxford University Press, 1996).

1932 Convention: Paul F. Boller, Jr., Presidential Campaigns.

1932 Hoover Policies: The editors of the New Republic (October 19, 1932),

1932 Votes: Paul F. Boller, Jr., Presidential Campaigns. Suffolk County: “Normal Rep. Vote Cut Heavily," East Hampton Star, Nov. 11, 1932, p.1.

Ogden Mills: Abbreviated from the The Federal Reserve History Gateway bio of Ogden Mills.

Cabinet: “Washington Inside and Out," East Hampton Star, Dec. 9, 1932.

Links to other chapters.

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Krugman vs. Taylor on the Zero-Bound Fed


Here's how I see the Great Debate about monetary policy, with John Taylor opening with an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal (http://on.wsj.com/VY0Iet) on the Fed being a drag on the economy through its continued zero-interest rate FOMC directive and Paul Krugman lambasting him via his NY Times perch for arguing that the low interest rates are inhibiting lending. (http://nyti.ms/VwkXU7):

Taylor is a "hard money" man (consistent with the dour mien of John Calvin, although Krugman says he has Calvin of Calvin & Hobbes in mind), unhappy at low interest rates that don't sufficiently reward prudent savers/debt-holders, so that banks withhold loans. Krugman has maintained consistently that the economy has not been stimulated enough on the fiscal side after the meltdown in 2008 and therefore staying at the zero-interest-rate bound at the short end of the market is a consequence; he is a continued-easy-money man.

Krugman's answer to Taylor's argument is that his theoretical framework is one of a ceiling, which is inappropriate. In fact the FOMC directs open market operations (buying short-term Treasury bills to put cash into the economy), and the equivalent in the longer end of the bond market, Quantitative Easing (buying longer-term Treasurys to bring down longer-term rates) also operates in the open market for debt.

The Fed does not regulate interest rates. It just buys and sells Treasurys.

For those who don't have time to pore through this exchange and its 60+ comments, I excerpt three comments that were posted around 9 am this morning to exemplify the struggle that the commentators have to be fair and to try to figure out who is right.
Justin - Brooklyn, NY: Can anyone kindly explain what this sentence is purporting to say? (I know that Krugman is refuting it, but this went over my head.): "low rates engineered by the Fed are just like a price ceiling that reduces the supply of loans, and therefore reduces overall lending."
AndyfromTucson - Tucson AZ: The reasoning is that the interest rate is the price paid for borrowing money, and so if the government caps the price at an artificially low level then it will reduce the supply of loans. Like if the government put a $5000 cap on the price of new automobiles all the car manufacturers would cut production. What Krugman is saying is that interest rates are not a legal cap, so this analysis doesn't work. Jan. 30, 2013 at 9:41 a.m.
save10percent - Denver, CO: My understanding of it is that as the price goes down (talking about the cost of taking out a loan, which is the interest paid), the quantity demanded goes up, but the quantity supplied goes down (econ 101). Taylor is saying that the fed sets the price ceiling too low and therefore banks aren't lending (less supply). Krugman says that the fed does not set a price ceiling for the interest on loans that banks make, so Taylor's argument doesn't make sense.
I have no doubt that Taylor will be back with an involved explanation why he was misunderstood. Meanwhile the winner of the debate pro tem is Paul Krugman and as one commentator observes, we can be glad that Gov. Mitt Romney did not win the presidential election, because if he had, Prof. Taylor was in line to become his Treasury Secretary.

Sunday, January 13, 2013

The Elephant in the Treasury - Why the Palladium Coin Was Rejected

The elephant in the room at the Treasury and Fed is the fear of being accused of "monetizing the debt". When the country is at the "zero bound" where interest rates on Federal debt are being constrained by Federal Open Market Committee policy to approach near-zero percent, then the difference between debt and money approaches near-zero.

So why the Treasury and Fed concern about a palladium coin valued at $1 trillion? It would solve the big problem of the debt ceiling. Paul Krugman has pointed out in his column in the print edition of the NY Times on Friday, January 11, that the Congress failing to authorize the debt ceiling forces the Executive Branch to withhold authorized payments, which blurs the roles of the Executive and Legislative branches.
Raising the debt ceiling wouldn't grant the president any new powers... [and] if the debt ceiling isn't raised, the president will be forced to break the law; either he borrows funds in defiance of Congress, or he fails to spend money Congress has told him to spend.
The palladium coin would also not appear to require Congressional approval - although the law does seem to require a "marketing plan" for the coin to be submitted to the Congress and a $25 palladium coin issue went through the Congressional legislative process in 2009-2010 as I have previously noted.

Here are some objections:
1. Separation of fiscal and monetary policy is an article of institutional and theoretical faith than no one wants to interfere with. For the Treasury to issue a trillion-dollar coin to deposit at the Treasury would open up all kinds of questions about this separation.
2. The zero-bound situation is temporary and everyone would like to escape from this difficult world as soon as possible. Former Fed Governor Larry Meyers said in December 2008 that at the zero bound the FOMC has nothing much to do and they should all take a very long vacation.  I am sure, however, he was not expecting the vacation to last until 2013.
3. A system with Federal Reserve independence is more resilient than one where the Fed and Treasury are combined. It's the 100th anniversary of the creation of the Fed, which was created to maintain orderly financial markets (the Fed was a remedy for the Bankers Panics of 1907-1908) and to preserve the value of the dollar. The fear that a head of state might tamper with the money supply to finance a war or excessive consumption is well founded. A monetary authority protecting the value of the people's money is a widely emulated institution.

So, however annoyed we may be about GOP misuse of the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip for something else, and thereby interfering with the conduct of government, the Treasury and Fed are right in opposing something that would blur the distinction between them.

However, some other plan better be ready to thwart a debt-ceiling blackmail.

Friday, January 11, 2013

Legality of the Trillion-Dollar Coin

One suggested way to address the debt limit challenge is for the U.S. Treasury to issue a trillion-dollar coin and then deposit it with the Federal Reserve System as cash. I'm not a lawyer, so I will not opine on the legality of any proposed action. However, I can read. I can look up the law. I can post it herewith.

The authority for minting a trillion-dollar "platinum" coin appears to come from U.S. Code 31, #5112, subsection (v). The reference is to palladium, which is in the family of "white gold" platinum elements, but has different characteristics from platinum. Note that the law in clause (v) (3) sets a minimum price for any minted coin, i.e., the cost of acquiring the metal and the cost of minting the coin. It does not have a maximum price. Here is the entire subsection, from the Cornell Law School website (see link at the end).

(v) Palladium Bullion Investment Coins.—
(1) In general.— Subject to the submission to the Secretary and the Congress of a marketing study described in paragraph (8), beginning not more than 1 year after the submission of the study to the Secretary and the Congress, the Secretary shall mint and issue the palladium coins described in paragraph (12) of subsection (a) in such quantities as the Secretary may determine to be appropriate to meet demand.
(2) Source of bullion.—
(A) In general.— The Secretary shall acquire bullion for the palladium coins issued under this subsection by purchase of palladium mined from natural deposits in the United States, or in a territory or possession of the United States, within 1 year after the month in which the ore from which it is derived was mined. If no such palladium is available or if it is not economically feasible to obtain such palladium, the Secretary may obtain palladium for the palladium coins described in paragraph (12) of subsection (a) from other available sources.
(B) Price of bullion.— The Secretary shall pay not more than the average world price for the palladium under subparagraph (A).
(3) Sale of coins.— Each coin issued under this subsection shall be sold for an amount the Secretary determines to be appropriate, but not less than the sum of—
(A) the market value of the bullion at the time of sale; and
(B) the cost of designing and issuing the coins, including labor, materials, dies, use of machinery, overhead expenses, marketing, distribution, and shipping.
(4) Treatment.— For purposes of section 5134 and 5136, all coins minted under this subsection shall be considered to be numismatic items.
(5) Quality.— The Secretary may issue the coins described in paragraph (1) in both proof and uncirculated versions, except that, should the Secretary determine that it is appropriate to issue proof or uncirculated versions of such coin, the Secretary shall, to the greatest extent possible, ensure that the surface treatment of each year’s proof or uncirculated version differs in some material way from that of the preceding year.
(6) Design.— Coins minted and issued under this subsection shall bear designs on the obverse and reverse that are close likenesses of the work of famed American coin designer and medallic artist Adolph Alexander Weinman—
(A) the obverse shall bear a high-relief likeness of the “Winged Liberty” design used on the obverse of the so-called “Mercury dime”;
(B) the reverse shall bear a high-relief version of the reverse design of the 1907 American Institute of Architects medal; and
(C) the coin shall bear such other inscriptions, including “Liberty”, “In God We Trust”, “United States of America”, the denomination and weight of the coin and the fineness of the metal, as the Secretary determines to be appropriate and in keeping with the original design.
(7) Mint facility.— Any United States mint, other than the United States Mint at West Point, New York, may be used to strike coins minted under this subsection other than any proof version of any such coin. If the Secretary determines that it is appropriate to issue any proof version of such coin, coins of such version shall be struck only at the United States Mint at West Point, New York.
(8) Marketing study defined.— The market study described in paragraph (1) means an analysis of the market for palladium bullion investments conducted by a reputable, independent third party that demonstrates that there would be adequate demand for palladium bullion coins produced by the United States Mint to ensure that such coins could be minted and issued at no net cost to taxpayers.  http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5112

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Creating U.S. Jobs - Six Avenues

What are the real choices before Washington this fall?

The number one issue before the nation is economic recovery. Unemployment rates have been too high for too long. Here are a few ideas about what we can expect and hope for during the next few months:

1. Don't Depend on an Out-of-Ammo Fed. Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke wants to appear to be doing everything he can. However, there is little more the Fed/FOMC can do to help the economy since December 16, 2008 when the Federal Funds rate was lowered to the Zero Bound. Quantitative Easing hasn't made much difference. How much can the Fed spend buying long-term Treasury bonds to lower long-term interest rates, even if it sells short-term Treasurys at the same time? How much difference does it make for the Fed to buy up long-term bonds if the Treasury is selling new ones at the next window?

2.  Implement Dodd-Frank to Help Address the Liquidity Trap. The economy would turn around if the Fed's easy-money policies led to more bank lending. But bankers are still worried about their balance sheets. Lax oversight by bank regulators has been replaced by close questioning. Bad loans are still not all recognized and new categories of potentially bad loans have opened up, e.g., the sovereign debt of the PIIGS countries, whose debts are freezing bank liquidity despite  of banks EU rescue programs. Speeding up implementation of Dodd-Frank financial reforms would improve confidence in and among U.S. banks.

3. Pass the President's Second Jobs Program. Another $450 billion for job creation may not be sufficient. However, it is necessary and a CNN poll and others show, by wide margin, that the U.S. public wants this program implemented.

4. Encourage Entrepreneurship. Creating jobs is not just about getting existing firms to hire more workers. It's about encouraging people to start up new businesses. Incubators help. Entrepreneurship can be taught - it's like a language. Governments at all levels can do big and small things to make it easier for people to create businesses.

5. Modify Fuel Prices to Encourage Green Jobs. Federal subsidies of alternative energy and energy efficiency didn't work as well as hoped because prices for fossil fuels don't reflect their full costs (and also because many states and localities did not have staff ready in 2009 to respond to stimulus programs offering money for green jobs). Subsidies for fossil fuels need to be ended and a tax on gasoline or carbon should be imposed. Tom Friedman had a good op-ed on this topic today ("Is It Weird Enough Yet?"). The last Congress rejected cap-and-trade and a carbon tax, but the pressure to find money to pay for Medicare and Social Security, as well as more evidence on global warming, might bring these proposals back to debate and action.

6. Most of All, Reform the Tax Code to Encourage Job Creation. If U.S. payroll tax rates are lowered significantly, as President Obama has suggested, this will have a dual benefit, encouraging employers to hire and putting money in the hands of middle-class consumers, who will spend it. This could be paid for by raising the top tax for those earning, say, $500,000 or more, and gradually raising the cap on the payroll tax (as Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-VT, has proposed). This would return the income tax to a semblance of progressivity and would tax those best able to bear the burden and least likely to spend new money.

George Magnus in the Financial Times describes the world's predicament as a "once-in-a-generation crisis of capitalism", bequeathed by the excesses of the 1980s-2008 period. The stakes couldn't be higher.