Leaning Into the Wind

BALTIMORE – During our lifetime, three Fed chiefs have faced a similar challenge.

Each occupied the chairman’s seat at a time when “normalization” of interest rates was in order.


Recently, we remembered William McChesney Martin, head of the U.S. Fed under the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations. Today, we compare Martin with two of his successors, Mr. Paul Volcker and Ms. Janet Yellen. We allow you to draw your own conclusion.


martinPunchbowl theft alert!


In 1951, the Fed and the Treasury clashed over “normalizing” interest rate policy after almost 10 years of tight control. In 1942, after the U.S. entered World War II, and at the request of the Treasury, the Fed pegged interest rates at a low level to make it easier for the government to finance the war. Come peacetime, it had to finesse a return to market-set rates.

Of course, the Fed can never fully shirk its responsibilities or ignore its influence. Its voting committee, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), has the ultimate say on setting short-term rates. But its hand on the controls can be heavy… or light. It can allow the market to express itself. Or it can shut the market up and do the talking itself.

After the troops came home, Martin developed two metaphors to describe his views on central banking. The first was that the central bank should neither set rates high nor low, but instead “lean into the wind.” The idea was to moderate market forces by exerting a little counter-cyclical pressure.

If the economy were running hot, the central bank would maintain its funds rate a little higher than usual. If the economy were cooling off, it would aim for a slightly lower rate. That brings us to the second of Martin’s metaphors.

The job of the Fed, he said, was to “take away the punch bowl just as the party gets going.” In other words, raise interest rates just when the economy starts to enter an unsustainable boom.


Times Change

Mr. Martin was not necessarily less intelligent than those who succeeded him. But times change. Fashions evolve. Today, Truman’s appointee as Fed chief might as well be wearing spats.

In February 1951, the annual consumer price index, or CPI – the most common measure of inflation – was running at almost 8% a year. President Truman summoned the entire FOMC to the White House – with Martin as the principal negotiator – to extract a pledge from them to keep interest rates pegged at low levels.

But the Fed dug its heels in and refused to “maintain the existing situation.” Martin then announced that he would allow interest rates to rise. And rise they did. From just under 1% when Martin took over as Fed chief, short-term rates stood at almost 4% at the start of the 1960s.


Frontal Assault

The next challenge came at the end of the 1970s. Paul Volcker, appointed by Jimmy Carter, was the man for the job. When Volcker took over the Fed, in August 1979, short-term rates and the CPI were somewhere north of 11%. And he aimed to bring both down to more normal levels.

But then as now, inflation had its friends. And everyone knew that bringing it under control would be painful. In 1980, Mr. Volcker spoke directly to the challenge:


After decades of inflation, many of us, more or less comfortably, have adapted our business and personal lives to the prospect of more inflation.

We count on capital gains from inflating house and land values as a substitute for real savings. We assume our competitors will match our aggressive pricing policies, and will also accede to high wage demands. We take comfort in our purchases of precious metals, art, and more exotic “collectibles” – or envy those who did buy – and are tempted to project essentially speculative price movements into the great beyond.

But none of this sense of accommodation to inflation can be a valid excuse for not acting to deal with the disease.


paul-volcker-time-magazineAnguish alert!


Getting inflation under control meant taking away not only the punch bowl, but also the entire buffet and open bar of money and credit on which the markets feasted.

But Volcker did not back away. He said what he meant and meant what he said. In June 1981, he dosed the economy with a 19.1% federal funds rate; in a few months, the fever was broken.


No Return to Normal

And now, we have Ms. Janet Yellen at the Fed’s helm, her firm grip on the wheel… her steely eye on the horizon. The situation is nothing like that which Mr. Volcker faced. Instead of a CPI in double-digits, today, the Fed is worried that consumer prices are not going up fast enough.

“An important concern about persistently low inflation,” is how Fed governor Lael Brainard described what was disturbing her sleep. And $7 trillion of developed-country government debt now trades at yields below zero – providing governments around the world with free money.

Getting back to normal is never easy, especially when you don’t want to get there. On March 27, 2015, Ms. Yellen spoke to her challenge.


yellnThe creature from the punchbowl!

Photo credit: Pablo Martinez Monsivais / Keystone / AP


“Normalizing Monetary Policy: Prospects and Perspectives” was the title of her speech. But both the content and the consequences were very different from those of either Mr. Volcker or Mr. Martin.

Where Mr. Martin had insisted that dictating interest rates was “inconsistent with… a private enterprise system,” Ms. Yellen saw no inconsistency at all. Where Mr. Martin saw the need in a great emergency – World War II – to depart from market-set interest rates, Ms. Yellen is ready to leave the market behind at the drop of the Dow.

And where Mr. Martin and Mr. Volcker both went resolutely about their work, Ms. Yellen seems unsure. A year ago, she said she would normalize rates “only gradually”… and that, although she had the “macro-prudential regulatory and supervisory tools” to do the job, investors should not expect miracles.

Nor did they receive any. In the 12 months that have gone by since her speech, only 25 basis points (even sparrows refuse to bend to pick up such trivial morsels) is the total of her niggardly gift to savers. As for “normal”… it is still nowhere in sight.


Image captions by PT


The above article originally appeared as Janet Yellen: You’re no Paul Volcker at the Diary of a Rogue Economist, written for Bonner & Partners. Bill Bonner founded Agora, Inc in 1978. It has since grown into one of the largest independent newsletter publishing companies in the world. He has also written three New York Times bestselling books, Financial Reckoning Day, Empire of Debt and Mobs, Messiahs and Markets.




Dear Readers!

You may have noticed that our header carries ab black flag. This is due to the recent passing of the main author of the Acting Man blog, Heinz Blasnik, under his nom de plume 'Pater Tenebrarum'. We want to thank you for following his blog for meanwhile 11 years and refer you to the 'Acting Man Classics' on the sidebar to get an introduction to his way of seeing economics. In the future, we will keep the blog running with regular uptates from our well known Co-Authors. For that, some financial help would be greatly appreciated. A special thank you to all readers who have already chipped in, your generosity is greatly appreciated. Regardless of that, we are honored by everybody's readership and hope we have managed to add a little value to your life.


Bitcoin address: 12vB2LeWQNjWh59tyfWw23ySqJ9kTfJifA


2 Responses to “Federal Devolution”

  • Kafka:

    For 15 years the Fed has falsified the cost of money. This has been good for M+A asset strippers, share buy-backs, and leveraged buyouts. Many have gotten filthy (filthier) rich while those out of the loop lost their jobs and desperately tried to maintain some semblance of income through borrowing.

    Cheered on by paid-for academics on the sidelines and political traitors in the media, the criminals in our midst now try to fake confusion.

    Some of them, even now, believe their own press clippings.

  • wmbean:

    I see on our favorite economic reality blog, Zero Hedge, that Jim Paulsen is worried about the return of the ghost of economic horror past, stagflation. If this development is true, at what point will interest rates start to climb without the FED’s approval? We seem to have a two tiered wage system, those individuals with “good paying” jobs and those who earn closer to the minimum wage limit. With the labor participation rate decreasing, how would stagflation affect the nation’s economy?

Your comment:

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Most read in the last 20 days:

  • Perversity: Thy Name is Dollar
    Perversity: Thy Name is Dollar If you ask most people, “what is money?” they will answer that money is the generally accepted medium of exchange. If you ask Google Images, it will show you many pictures of green pieces of paper. Virtually everyone agrees that money means the dollar.   Image credit: Cildo Meireles   Breaking Down the Dollar Monetary System What does it mean to have a dollar? If you hold a piece of paper with green ink on it, which says “ONE...
  • What’s In Your Loan?
      Opposing Monetary Directions “Real estate is the future of the monetary system,” declares a real estate bug. Does this make any sense? We would ask him this. “OK how will houses be borrowed and lent?” “Look at this housing bond,” he says, pointing to a bond denominated in dollars, with principal and interest paid in dollars. “What do you mean ‘housing’ bond’,” we ask, “it’s a bond denominated in dollars!” “Yes, but housing is the...

Support Acting Man

Austrian Theory and Investment


THE GOLD CARTEL: Government Intervention on Gold, the Mega Bubble in Paper and What This Means for Your Future

Realtime Charts


Gold in USD:

[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]



Gold in EUR:

[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]



Silver in USD:

[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]



Platinum in USD:

[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]



USD - Index:

[Most Recent USD from www.kitco.com]


Mish Talk

    Buy Silver Now!
    Buy Gold Now!