FINRA and a multitude of other online sources allow
members of the public to test their financial literacy. Sadly, the results of
these online quizzes showcase a lack of knowledge on basic financial matters by
the public at-large. On FINRA’s version,
the national average score is solely 2.88 correct answers out of the following
5 questions:
- Suppose you have $100 in a savings account earning 2 percent interest a year. After five years, how much would you have? (Answer choices are simply: “More than $102”, “Exactly $102”, “Less than $102”, and “Don’t Know”)
- Imagine that the interest rate on your savings account is 1 percent a year and inflation is 2 percent a year. After one year, would the money in the account buy more than it does today, exactly the same or less than today?
- If interest rates rise, what will typically happen to bond prices? Rise, fall, stay the same, or is there no relationship?
- True or false: A 15-year mortgage typically requires higher monthly payments than a 30-year mortgage but the total interest over the life of the loan will be less.
- True or false: Buying a single company's stock usually provides a safer return than a stock mutual fund.
Most fields of science face challenges when it comes to
communication and engagement with the general public. While this is perhaps
most pressing for some fields of the natural sciences—for example, those
scientists communicating climate change science—it also applies to topics in
the social sciences, and in particular to those that guide policy.
A lack of financial and economic literacy does not only
jeopardize the individual financial health of households, but also the health
of the economy at-large. Be it a chronic lack of saving (a recent Google Consumer Survey found that 62% of American households have less than $1,000 in their savings
accounts, and that 21% don’t even have savings accounts) or its implications
regarding economic growth and the effectiveness of monetary policy, the ability
of economic policymakers to effectively craft policy is hampered by the
public’s misunderstanding—or simply lack of understanding—of the policies or
the issues underlying them.
Indeed, many—both on and off the political spheres—call
for strict audits of the Fed, and for this central bank to follow a policy rule,
by which some formula would dictate the effective Fed Funds rate (as opposed to
it being voted on by members of the FOMC). As any testimony by Chair Yellen
would attest, the Fed faces much pressure to follow this rule, but such a
process would severely hamper the Fed’s ability to take extraordinary action
during times of crisis, or even of expansion.
After all, when the time comes to set policy, the Fed
must be able to weigh different moving pieces and dynamic factors of the
economy as they arise and evolve. A formula, no matter how robust or well of a
fit to past data it may be, would never be able to deal as effectively with
policy-setting—at least for the moment—as the power of human brains trained in
Economics.
After all, many point out that well-known “rules” (such
as the Taylor rule) would have likely implied negative interest rates during
the financial crisis and ensuing recession of 2008-2009. Yet, at the moment, a
negative interest rate is not part of the Fed’s arsenal for setting policy. As
such, tying the Fed to only follow the prescriptions of such a rule would have
implied a policy less responsive to the gravity of the situation (as the Fed
Funds rate would have likely been set at the floor of 25 basis points, but
without the option for quantitative easing as rolled out further in the crisis,
or for forward guidance, two powerful tools employed by the Fed in this
recovery).
Moreover, rules would have to follow data as observed
historically and regressed with different econometric models, and be at the
least informed by economic theory. Yet, even now we face a time where we see a
tightening labor market, but persistently low inflation (a phenomenon many have
referenced to call for patience from the Fed in raising rates). A model would
thus likely respond inadequately to such moving forces—as traditionally and
theoretically, an expansion implies lowering unemployment and increasing
inflation. The Fed must be able to adapt to the future and to extraordinary
circumstances, such as the ones we observe today. A rule would instead limit
the Fed’s ability and flexibility in responding to crises.
Lastly, the Fed must be able to gently guide policy,
while a rule might instead lead to abrupt changes, or lag the economy. By
definition, a rule/ formula must be data-dependent and driven by what’s been
historically observed. As such, a rule is almost exclusively backward-looking, so
that policy changes may be mistimed, too strong or weak depending on the
situation, or fail to adjust for future expectations.
All in all, rules and formulas—like algorithms in
general—help simplify processes. But monetary policy should inherently not be simple, and should not follow a
cookie-cutter process, as the economy is not itself a predictable mechanism. While
more transparency from central banks is always welcome, the truth is that a
rule would not benefit anyone in the economy, as policy would likely remain
above the level of financial and economic literacy currently observed (thus, no
one’s thirst for complete transparency would really be satisfied), a rule might
be as or more error-prone than human policymakers (given the limitations in
observing all the data and weighing the different factors appropriately,
according to purely historical relationships and not evolving phenomena), the
models used to determine the rule would likely face as much if not more criticism than the current human
policymakers, and a rule might imply a limiting of the effectiveness of
monetary policy (making our economy dangerously more policy neutral), as it
allows agents in the economy to absorb information more quickly and expect
changes in policy before they actually happen, as prescribed by the rule.
As even some Fed papers have laid out,
the Fed can often be a bit of a black box. As such, economists and policy
makers face a challenge in increasing the financial and economic literacy of
the general public, such that their own policy recommendations and research
results are more meaningful, fruitful, and effective. However, a rule to tie
the Fed’s policy-making power goes too far in the direction of “increased
transparency,” instead limiting the Fed’s ability to carry out its dual
mandate. A happy medium between outreach to the public-at-large, simplified
policy statements, and increased knowledge of the workings of economic policy
would go a long way in bridging the gaps between economists and the laymen
affected by the former’s policy actions.
No comments:
Post a Comment