Skip to content

Ep. 204 Scott Sumner Argues the Bernanke Fed Was Too Tight

Scott Sumner is a monetary economist with the Mercatus Center. He famously argued in late 2008 that the Fed was too tight with monetary policy, and eventually he has convinced many economists of his views. In this episode he explains why interest rates and even monetary aggregates are not good indicators of the stance of monetary policy, whereas NGDP growth is much better.

Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest:

The audio production for this episode was provided by Podsworth Media.

About the author, Robert

Christian and economist, Chief Economist at infineo, and Senior Fellow with the Mises Institute.

9 Comments

  1. Ohad Osterreicher on 06/11/2021 at 3:40 PM

    Yes!!! Someone up there is listing to my prayers.

  2. honkyblood on 06/13/2021 at 1:53 AM

    Why would the interest rate naturally fall during a recession (00:35:00)… During a recession I would be more careful in lending, so maybe he reasons that the lendees chosen by the lendors are only the best A1 lendees, so the lendors set a low interest rate for this top of the line class of lendees?

    • Gregory Bainathsah on 06/16/2021 at 9:32 AM

      During a recession people move from risky assets (stocks) to riskless assets (bonds). Buying bonds will make yields fall

  3. honkyblood on 06/13/2021 at 1:54 AM

    in re: 00:35:00 maybe cause a recession is deflationary so the rates go down…

  4. clort89 on 06/13/2021 at 3:31 PM

    When listening, it’s important to recognize and keep in mind some of the deep muddling that causes the “real mess” Sumners mentioned:

    1) Discussing whether the ‘Fed was too tight’ is like debating whether the comintern ordered the right number of chandeliers for the Soviet Union. It’s like debating whether the italian Mafia extorted the “right” amount of money from the restaurants.

    Engaging in discussion which frames such a cabal as legitimate and not criminal is to participate in a major mental misdirection. Legitimizing a centrally planned money supply – a plank of Marx’s Communist Manifesto – is not a position a ‘free market person’ takes.

    2) Sumner makes a correct point that the interest rate isn’t a measure of how much lending (fiat money creation) is going-on. However the way to measure money creation is to measure money creation – not Sumner constructing a function (farcical aquatic ceremony) out of NGDP and consumer price indeces. We’ve had siginificant (Austrian) inflation without corresponding rises in CPI – this indicates the new money stayed with the 0.1%.

    Accepting the perversion of the definition of inflation to mean ‘consumer price increases’ is to condemn youself to sputtering nonsense. The only coherent definition of inflation is the increase in fiat money.

    Accepting the muddling between CPI and inflation makes economists run around like decapitated chickens. And making careers of it. While the Federal Reserve shoves corn mash down their headless necks.

    3) Sumner argues the Fed is sometimes just following reduced natural demand for loans with their interest rates. Sorry. Asymptotically approaching zero isn’t following: A sub-1% annual interest rate isn’t even in the ballpark of natural, free-market interest rates. Sumner’s justification that the ‘equilibrium interest rate’ was NEGATIVE just indicates that the ‘equilibrium interest rate’ is a farce. You don’t lend-out something valuable and pay someone to take it; It’s impossible in a market economy with real money representing real value. It’s only possible in this financial inverted clown world where the clown cartel can print ‘money’ out of nothing.

    This is the confusion you get when you build a house on a fraudulent fundament – namely, the central bank and fiat-money fractional-reserve regime. Yes, “It’s a real mess,” Dr. Sumners, and untangling that gordian knot without taking out your sword and ending the source of confusion is a fool’s errand.g

    • Not Bob on 06/16/2021 at 5:12 AM

      I get the feeling these technicalists love losing themselves in the nitty gritty details of the technicality of it all. Maybe because it justifies their jobs. “The market will figure it out” isn’t a very good justification to draw a salary.

  5. Not Bob on 06/15/2021 at 1:59 AM

    “I think people like the network effects of money.”

    If only there was a mechanism to discover people’s preferences. I guess we’ll never know.

  6. ECharles on 06/16/2021 at 5:27 PM

    “1) Discussing whether the ‘Fed was too tight’ is like debating whether the comintern ordered the right number of chandeliers for the Soviet Union. It’s like debating whether the italian Mafia extorted the “right” amount of money from the restaurants.”

    Or debating why some schools perform better internationally than others. Or why some legal systems are better than others. OR why some police departments are less corrupt than others. There’s a lot of statist crap in existence but incentives still exist.

    “Asymptotically approaching zero isn’t following: A sub-1% annual interest rate isn’t even in the ballpark of natural, free-market interest rates.”

    You seem to be contradicting yourself here. If government is terrible at managing money, then what you get is severe inefficiencies like negative natural interest rates. Scott is just pointing out they exist and the Fed does a poor job if managing that.

  7. AC on 06/17/2021 at 11:07 AM

    I don’t understand your reluctance to offer objections, you don’t have to call it a “debate” or be combative about it. You obviously have fundamental disagreements, so it is a real missed opportunity to flesh it out.

Leave a Comment