Obama, Congress and the next Federal Reserve chair

 
Larry Summers

It was always going to be peculiarly challenging to get a majority of US Senators to confirm Larry Summers as the next head of the US Federal Reserve. I am in Washington this week, and what is most surprising to people here is that the Summers' candidacy lasted as long as it did.

One lesson is that President Obama really, really, wants "one of his guys" to run the Fed (and yes, the people who fit this description are all guys). We don't yet know whether he has given up on that goal.

Another conclusion you could draw is that when it comes to the financial system, many Senate Democrats are happier fighting the last war than worrying about the next one.

Janet Yellen was quicker to see the seeds of the 2008-9 financial crisis being planted than Larry Summers was. But today, the financial imbalances that worry people most are the ones coming from the super-loose policies of the Federal Reserve.

When it comes to those policies, it is Yellen - not Summers - who seems to be the true believer.

True, Summers' enemies on Capitol Hill are a broad church. Some Democrats have hated him ever since a politically incorrect memo about the environment was written in his name while he was chief economist at the World Bank.

Financial crisis

But what seems to have damaged him most in his bid for the Fed is his association with the liberalisation of US financial markets when he was working for President Clinton, including the moves to free up investment banking and the trade in derivatives. (Full information: I was working for him at the US Treasury when this was happening.)

Summers' enemies say these reforms helped pave the way for the financial crisis, by allowing enormous imbalances to build up in the under-regulated parts of the system, including the market for credit derivatives.

The then Fed Chair, Alan Greenspan, had argued strongly that the investors in these parts of the market could be trusted to look after their own interests. He was wrong, and the Clinton Treasury is fully implicated in that mistake.

By contrast, Janet Yellen has a record as someone who sounded the financial alarm relatively early. That makes her a much more popular choice in the president's party.

She is also very well qualified for the job. Even the academic heavyweights who came down on Summers' side have said that she would also be a strong choice.

President Obama knows all that. He also knows if he doesn't appoint Yellen, he will seem to have gone out of his way not to appoint the first woman in this crucial job. Even fans of Summers might be uncomfortable with that.

So, global investors might be right to think that Janet Yellen as chairman is now a sure thing. They are probably also right to consider her the more "dove-ish" choice.

Though Summers has been tight-lipped about monetary policy since the start of the crisis, Yellen seems to have fewer reservations about the Fed continuing to have a super-loose policy stance - with or without "tapering". She is also more of a true believer when it comes to the value of forward guidance.

Plan C

As I mentioned at the start, that does not necessarily make her the safe choice right now, at a time when many worry about the distortions building up in the financial system as a result of all this cheap liquidity.

But, President Obama may be less worried about that side to Janet Yellen than the simple fact that he does not know her.

Whatever the truth, he cannot be entirely comfortable with her as Fed chair or he would have have nominated her already.

The word is that Mr Obama tried quite hard to persuade Mr Bernanke to stay in the job. He also tried to get former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to put his hat in the ring.

It is probably too late, now, for the president to revisit these options. It may also be too late for him to appoint his "own man". But having lost Summers, I can't help thinking Mr Obama will spend some time looking for a Plan C.

 
Stephanie Flanders, Economics editor Article written by Stephanie Flanders Stephanie Flanders Former economics editor

So it's goodbye from me

After 11 years at the BBC, I'm leaving for a new role in the City.

Read full article

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 55.

    reading about beatles is far better than this! https://bitly.com/1dQcDGi

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 54.

    Most knowledgeable Americans are praying for the day that the Federal Reserve System ( like most do, we abbreviate it "Fed" ) is abolished for good. The Fed has so screwed, defrauded and "nicked" us since it's inception.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 53.

    It's best that Larry Summers withdrew his name for consideration. Among the last things the Fed - or the US Financial system - needs is a chairman who's convinced he is essentially infallible; something Summers has demonstrated numerous times over an extended period in several different positions. The Fed Chair is too important for a 'macho-prima donna' to occupy it.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 52.

    I think it's better that the BBC reports fully what the Fed does, not the debate who will lead it. They print money at will and loan this money to banks from where it is loaned again to the public. This 'cash out of thin air' then needs to be repaid back at interest through our labour- in effect slavery through the back door. The Federal Reserve is about a public an enterprise as Federal Express.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 51.

    28.SJH


    Neither - both systems end up working to increase their joint power/money.....I don't believe there's a sinister conspiracy so much as a large swath of idiots who have convinced themselves that Neo_liberal economics works when it patently doesn't....

    ...we need a retrun to the ays of proper rgeulation of greed before thw whole world's economy/ies goes down....

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 50.

    Interesting. I always thoight that in terms of cowboy bankers Summers was the blackest of Black Hats, an unapologetic ace deregulator, like the rest of his compardres on the Harvard range. And he seems to think that women are only suitable as saloon floosies! I might have to revisit that last bit since you worked for him Steph. How was that? Any chance of a potboiler novel based on that?

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 49.

    Stephanie, what a great article.

    There's little alternative for good journalism than getting one's boots on the ground - in this case, over here in DC. It's clearly business as usual at the Fed (like at the BoE), whatever the personnel changes. More monetary & fiscal manipulation, more deferring the inevitable crash. Obama will be safely out of office when the monetary ship finally sinks.

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 48.

    This time we need a Scottish-American with an Actuarial mind!

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 47.

    First of all it should have an audit.
    And the media should explain to the unknowing and the unseeing that it is a PRIVATE buisiness.
    A buisiness that's doing rather well considering it creates money out of thin air...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iP9H5fADC0E

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 46.

    Does it matter who he puts in place, behind the facade, we all have come to know, is the devil himself.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 45.

    There are whole heaps of Financial Experts who are unemployed from the financial and banking crises who could step up to do the dirty deed

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 44.

    Doesn't really matter who the new chair of the Fed is, their hands will be tied. The Fed can't stop (or even "taper") buying treasury bonds because nobody else wants them. If it did stop then the whole house of cards would collapse.

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 43.

    John_from_Hendon
    Without the FED many of the US institutions will collapse. And now they are playing a very intricate game. On the one hand the President wants them to keep on printing money on the other they are set to lose the position of Reserve Currency which will push up rates, either way there is pain and we will see inflation and interest rates rise in the US. And so to the rest..

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 42.

    38.shellscript


    Grow up you silly little child & stop throwing tantrums...

    A/. The BBC is paid for by a License Fee, not a tax...

    B/. Every household in the UK pays it so it is only right the BBC provides content for everyone...

    C/. To deamnd they only provide you with stuff is EXETERMLY SELFISH & ILL MANNERED on YOUR part...

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 41.

    Meanwhile UK RPI has risen to 3.3% which is yet another nail in our coffin & the treasury's long term ability to borrow cheaply.

    I see the BBC has trumpeted the fall in the aritificial CPI which excludes housing costs amongst others.

    When this "forward guided" bubble bursts over here its going to be very painful for millions of citizens & toast for whoever is in power at the time.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 40.

    29.p "JPMORGAN TO AGREE $M750 IN WHALE FINES"

    I am certain that this only scratches the surface of the way that the mega uncontrollable anti-people banks have corruptly abused their powers. Take the commission paid by Barclays of $M500 for example.

    If it is ever possible to add up all of the market abuse (against the people) it would far exceed the $Tn3 in Fed QE.

    We are plucked & stuffed!

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 39.

    38.shellscript "wasting public money on the US news"

    Because AMERICAN news inevitably changes how much savers get and borrowers pay in the UK.

    We are slaves to the global economy, particularly so given the (stupid!) UK dependence on being a home for international banking behemoths (far beyond our capacity to either control or rescue). They say jump we say how high! Till this stops etc..

  • Comment number 38.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 37.

    We are all scroungers now.

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 36.

    Now Reinhart & Rogoff asserted particular consequences to various national debt levels consequenced by GDP. A devisive argument.

    Debt affects savings so there is balance to be struck but applying R&R's deductions to personal income, should have raised some red flags to those happy to adopt their preaching. Reduce UK personal debt to 60% of income and the wheels fall off our economy. Tax dodgers

 

Page 1 of 3

 

Features

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.