President Bush displayed good sense on Tuesday by indicating his willingness to appoint Alan Greenspan to yet another term as chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Though Greenspan said Wednesday he wants another term, he should step down when his current term ends in June 2004. Failing that, he should tender his resignation after the 2004 national elections.
It is not a question of the chairman doing a bad job. Economic historians probably will give Greenspan favorable ratings.
Nor is there any important economic principle involved. Scholarly economists don’t spend time pondering who exactly should preside over the Fed board. Nor should they.
The issue is rather a pragmatic and institutional one. The Fed chair is an important post within U.S. government, but is not nearly as important as many reporters or members of the general public think.
Many people could ably fill the position. It would be healthy for our economy to diminish the cult of personality that has developed around Greenspan and his office over the last 16 years. His stepping down would be a positive step.
The media and financial markets place far more emphasis on the specific individual who occupies the Fed chair today than they did during the Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon years.
This is understandable. Most reporters and editors have only a dim understanding of the issues in monetary policy or of how the Fed works. These subjects are not exactly scintillating for the average reader or listener. It is easier to write a lively story about “What will Greenspan do?” than about “What should the Fed do?”
It parallels what has happened in political campaign coverage. Important public policy issues bore many people. Discussing them in any depth simply doesn’t fit the sound-bite format of modern television news.
In economic reporting, no serious exposition of the tradeoffs faced by monetary policy authorities will keep viewers from punching the channel buttons on their TV remotes. Instead reporters ask, “What will Greenspan do next?”
Participants in financial markets should be better informed about monetary policy than the general public. But stock and bond markets are notoriously sensitive to short-term swings driven by irrational emotions. Economic fundamentals may drive long-term trends, but many traders’ pay and bonuses depend on short-term outguessing of the markets.
In such an environment, focusing on a specific individual and what he is expected to do has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. If financial markets think the Fed chair is overwhelmingly important, he or she will be.
The reality, however, is that the Fed chair is only one of 12 people who determine what should be done with money supply. Six other governors and five Fed district bank presidents vote at the Federal Open Market Committee meetings, held every six weeks.
Any Fed chair has to convince at least seven or eight bright, independent people to agree with what he proposes. The chair can live with a few dissenting votes from time to time, but if more than a few other FOMC members disagree, he is better off shutting his mouth.
The reason that so few dissenting votes are recorded is not a sign that the other 11 FOMC members are Greenspan’s docile lapdogs but rather that he is politically astute enough not to propose something that won’t pass with the others.
Alan Greenspan is almost 78 and has served for nearly 16 years. The economy is not in crisis, despite what some say. It is a very good time for him to gracefully bow out. President Bush could then appoint a competent, but relatively colorless, successor.
Martin Feldstein, conservative economics prof at Harvard has been mentioned as a leading candidate. He would not be my first choice, but he could do the job well.
So could current Fed vice chair Roger Ferguson or William McDonough, president of the New York Fed. Al Broaddus or Gary Stern, the little-known but highly experienced presidents of the Richmond and Minneapolis Feds, respectively, are also good prospects.
Middlebury College econ professor David Collander once wrote an essay asking “Why aren’t economists as important as garbagemen?” The Fed chair is more important to U.S. society than the average garbageman but not enormously so.
© 2003 Edward Lotterman
Chanarambie Consulting, Inc.