How Can It Be That a ‘Thief in the Night’ Is Loosed by the Federal Reserve Under the Nose of a Passive Congress?
And what would it mean if Congress were active in the decisions?
The Federal Reserve is a problem for the constitutional order of our republic. How can it be that the central bank considers itself able to unilaterally impose permanent inflation on the country, without legislative debate or approval?
The shifting theories believed by central banks are among the most important of macro-economic factors. The chairman of the Federal Reserve Board between 1951 and 1970, William McChesney Martin, characterized inflation as “a thief in the night.”
In remarkable contrast, the Fed under Ben Bernanke, chairman between 2006 and 2014, explicitly committed itself and the country to inflation forever at the rate of 2 percent a year, thus assuming that constant inflation should not only be taken for granted, but pursued.
If the purchasing power of the currency continuously depreciates at the rate of two percent per year, as the Fed now promises, in the course of a single lifetime, average prices would quintuple. At three percent, as is sometimes suggested, prices in a lifetime would multiply by ten times. At four percent, they would multiply by 23 times.
Is this the kind of money the American people want? I don’t think so. Congress did acquiesce in the 1970s to the executive move to fiat money, untied to gold, as previously required by the Bretton Woods agreement, and later removed legislative ties of the dollar to gold.
That’s the kind of money wanted by those who long to expand government power and finance it by an unlegislated inflation tax. The Congress didn’t, though, call for, enact, or approve a policy of pursuing inflation per se. It wrote into the Federal Reserve Reform Act of 1977 a requirement that a principal goal of the Fed is “stable prices.”
The nature of money and the stability of its value is an essential political and social question. William Jennings Bryan famously proclaimed, “You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.” On the other hand, we may proclaim, “You shall not drown mankind in a flood of paper money.” Who gets to choose between inflationist money and sound money?
Not the Fed by itself. Coining money, and regulating the value thereof, are questions profoundly requiring the Congress. They are specifically enumerated in the Constitution as among the powers granted, in Article One, Section Eight, to Congress.
The press is full of references to “the Fed’s” two percent inflation target. But if there is to be such a target, it should be “the country’s” target, not “the Fed’s” target. The Fed’s proposal to constantly depreciate the people’s money should have been presented to the elected representatives of the people for approval or rejection. It wasn’t.
How in the world did the Fed imagine that it had the authority all on its own to commit the nation to perpetual inflation and depreciation of the currency at some rate of its own choosing? The only explanation I can think of is pure arrogance.
Being the most powerful financial institution in the world and the purveyor of the dominant fiat currency might lead the Fed to an excessively high opinion of its own authority. At the same time, the Fed has crucial and dangerous inherent weaknesses.
It has demonstrated beyond question its inability to predict the financial and economic future. It can inflate disastrous asset price bubbles as well as consumer prices. It is unable to know what the results of its own actions will be.
This inability is notably shown by its own financial performance: a net loss of $111 billion since September 2022, as reported on October 19, tens of billions in net losses still to come, and a mark to market loss on its investments of more than $1 trillion.
Congress should, first and foremost, amend the Federal Reserve Act to make it clear that setting any “inflation target” requires review and approval by Congress, as a public choice between kinds of money. And make it clear that the Fed lacks unilateral power to decide the nature of the money the Congress provides.
Congress should also cancel the two percent inflation target announced by the Fed, until the Congress has approved such an action or provided some other guidance — say, “stable prices” — a goal that is already stated in the Federal Reserve Act, but is being evaded.
Stable prices imply a long-run average inflation rate of approximately zero — in other words, a goal of sound money. All in all, we need to control the powerful and dangerous Federal Reserve by using the checks and balances of our constitutional republic.