(actual post at end)

Here’s Ross Douthat:

Not so Trump: All instinct and solipsism, he simply doesn’t care enough about Trumpism to find people who might carry his impulses forward once he’s gone. And so he’s bidding to do for monetary policy what he’s done in domestic policy and foreign policy already: Pursue a somewhat heterodox and populist agenda, but leave its implementation — and therefore to some extent its future — in the hands of men like Moore or John Bolton or Mick Mulvaney who represent the consensus that he once campaigned against.

Trump wants smart people. And Trump understands that this means they will view him in a negative light. Thus here’s Mulvaney:

Mick Mulvaney, President Trump’s pick to be acting White House chief of staff, described Mr. Trump in 2016 as a “terrible human being” 

And here’s Kudlow and Moore:

President Donald Trump’s pick to serve on the Federal Reserve Stephen Moore once criticized Trump’s positions on immigration, describing them as “extreme nativist” and calling them “crazy” and “dangerous.”

Moore made the comments in an August 2015 radio interview with Larry Kudlow, who now serves as the President’s top economic adviser. In that interview, Kudlow compared Trump’s immigration plans to the worst parts of World War II — in an apparent reference to the Holocaust — and said Trump’s only real supporters came from “the nativist fringe.”

Godwin’s Law again. What’s wrong with these people?

And it’s not just what they say before they work for Trump; his officials continue insulting him after they get the job, in anonymous comments to the press that invariably leak out.

[BTW, a few weeks ago my Trumpista commenters told me that press reports of Mueller dissatisfaction with the Barr letter was “fake news.” Hah! Living in an epistemic bubble must really suck.]

Douthat also recommends some options to replace Cain and Moore:

I have suggested Ponnuru as a possibility before; as a journalist he has a long paper trail of rigorous, mostly vindicated takes on monetary policy, and as a representative of the right’s intelligentsia he’s everything that Moore is not.

Another clever choice would be Karl Smith, another Bloomberg columnist, a former economics professor and a prolific economics blogger, who has also defended Trump’s much-criticized tax reform (in case that matters to anyone in the White House!). Alternatively, if Trump prefers someone with a current academic title, then he should tap Scott Sumner or David Beckworth from George Mason University, both of whom were elaborating the more dovish case back when Moore was still pitching the gold standard.

Of course because they’re serious people, that “dovish” case is far more sophisticated than the White House’s palpable desire for rate cuts as re-election stimulus. Also, Sumner recently called for Trump’s impeachment … so, yeah, he’s probably off the table.

Douthat doesn’t understand that not only does insulting Trump not disqualify me for a position in the Trump administration, it’s practically a requirement for the job. But I don’t expect to be picked right now. Rather the master plan is more subtle. Look for Trump to pick a few other people from the Douthat list, to stock the Fed with market monetarists.

I’m being held back for the position of Fed chair, when the spot opens up in a few years. Then there will be a complete MM takeover of the Fed, with NGDP level targeting adopted. This will assure an Australian-style infinite business cycle expansion, which will make Trump go down in history as the man who ended the business cycle forever.

The impeachment talk I engage in is just a ploy to reassure Democratic senators so that they don’t block my nomination. They won’t be able to accuse me of being a partisan hack.

How do I know all this? Kudlow tipped his hand back in 2013 with his list of possible replacements for Bernanke:

Among widespread speculation that Ben Bernanke will retire in January, Larry Kudlow named his top candidates for Federal Reserve Chairman.

“After much deep-thinking as well as phone calls to my hard-money friends, the answer is Former Governor and current Fed critic Kevin Warsh,” Kudlow said on CNBC. “He is my man to replace Bernanke.”

Kudlow said Warsh was his top pick to maintain the value of the dollar and help grow the economy. . . .

Kudlow’s list also includes Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher; Stanford Economics Professor John Taylor; Forbes Media Chairman and CEO Steve Forbes; Rep. Paul Ryan, a Republican from Wisconsin; and Bentley University Professor Scott Sumner.

That’s six names, so how do I know it will be me? In those days, Kudlow was looking for a hawk because Obama was President. Now he’s looking for a dove. That rules out the other 5 guys on the list. I’m the only one left. It’s logical.

Kudlow’s had his eye on me for a long time, and now is his chance to execute the master plan to create a supply-side miracle.

PS. Sam Bowman recently posted a few tweets that spoofed everything from utilitarianism to paternalism to moral hazard. The Times did an article that assumed Sam was serious. Seriously.  So do I have to ruin everything by pointing out that this entire post is an April fool’s joke, arriving one month late?

I guess I do.

PPS. I guess I should say something more serious, so here is my actual post:

It’s naive to believe that you change monetary policy by getting the right people placed on the Board. That’s not how things work. You change policy by changing the conversation. So while it’s certainly good news that Douthat is recommending David Beckworth, the even better news is that his column helps to bring us to the attention of the conservative community. Liberals are already sort of on board with NGDP targeting. If we can also convince conservatives, then it will eventually happen. History is moved by ideas, not staffing decisions.

For those foolish enough to pay attention to my predictions, here are a few thoughts on the current condition of the economy. First the data:

1. Stocks hitting all-time record levels.

2. The yield curve un-inverting, back to a normal slope.

3. But 2-year yields remain below 3-month yields.

4. Five-year TIPS spreads at 1.87% (implying PCE inflation closer to 1.62%.)

The TIPS spreads might be slightly biased by risk premia, etc., but overall I suspect that inflation expectations actually are below 2%, say in the 1.7% to 1.8% range, over the next 5 years.

The most interesting data point is:

5. A roughly 88% chance of a rate cut by January 2020, according to the fed funds futures.

Update: That seems to be an error on my part. CME Fedwatch lists a 70.7% chance of a rate cut.

Here I think it’s important not to obsess over a single data point, but look at the set of data as a picture that describes a complex scenario. Here’s my view:

The stock market clearly doesn’t expect a recession. That’s probably the least controversial thing I’ll say. Thus the strong expectation of a rate cut by 2020 is motivated by something other than recession fears. (At least I got that right back in December!) My best guess is that the fed funds futures market and the TIPS markets are seeing the same thing—“lowflation” is a real issue, under-appreciated by the Fed.

Now let’s go back to stocks—why isn’t lowflation a problem for stocks? Let’s start with the fact that while academic economists like me worry about the impact of lowflation on policy credibility, it doesn’t matter all that much to hard-headed investors, who don’t much care whether inflation averages 1.75% or 2.0%, as long as it’s associated with steady NGDP growth.

Then recall that most recent recessions were triggered by tight money policies aimed at restraining high inflation. And yes, that includes the 2008 recession. The markets now see the Fed in a long drawn out battle against lowflation, which means that we’ll likely go many years before the Fed would institute the sort of tight money policy that typically triggers a recession.

In other words, they see a sort of goldilocks economy, with the Fed consistently trying to nudge PCE inflation up from 1.75% to 2.0%. They see the rate cut that they anticipate in 2020 as being analogous to the 1995 rate cut, which paved the way for 5 golden years of growth.

Of course the markets may be wrong, but that’s my best guess as to what they anticipate. And since I’m a market monetarist, that’s also what I anticipate.

There are worse things than 5 more years of the Fed struggling to push inflation up from 1.75% to 2%, and I’ve lived through plenty of them. Cast your eyes over to Europe, described in this memorable line by Wolfgang Munchau:

It says a lot about the eurozone economy that it reached the top of its business cycle with short-term interest rate at -0.4 per cent.

File that under “very good sentences”.

To add insult to injury, the Fed is having a June conference aimed at improving its already fine performance, whereas the Europeans don’t seem to have a clue as to what went wrong with the euro. Sad!

PS. Hint: The problem with the euro is not the lack of a eurozone-wide fiscal policy, which would never work, it’s the failure of the ECB to maintain adequate growth in NGDP. In other words, the stubborn Germans and the enlightened European liberals are both wrong. I’m afraid there’s no hope for Europe.

PPS. I have a new 7-page policy brief at Mercatus that explains the basics of monetary policy. It’s basically for beginners.

During the Great Recession, the Fed’s target interest rate never fell below 0.25%. The various QE programs pushed the monetary base up to a peak of just over 20% of GDP.

In contrast, the Swiss have reduced their target interest rate to negative 0.75%, and their monetary base has been increased to roughly 100% of GDP. So you might wonder if the Swiss are out of ammo. Far from it:

The Swiss National Bank can lower its subzero interest rates even further, President Thomas Jordan told newspaper Blick.

In the interview, Jordan affirmed the ongoing need for a deposit rate of minus 0.75 percent plus a pledge to intervene in currency markets, if necessary, adding the franc remains highly valued. . . .

“We always have the possibility of lowering rates further. We have already gone quite far, but still we’ve got the necessary room to maneuver,” he was quoted as saying in comments published in Saturday’s Blick. “And we can, if necessary, expand the balance sheet further via interventions.”

While the Swiss economy is currently doing pretty well, it’s nice to know that they have the necessary ammo for more stimulus, if needed. Indeed their willingness to employ this ammo is one of the reasons why the Swiss economy is doing OK.

If only the Fed had been willing to be more aggressive during the Great Recession. In that case there might have been only a mild recession, and no need for them to actually be so aggressive.

Another country with plenty of ammo is Argentina, where inflation is running at 50%. The Economist describes the problem this way:

Argentina’s macroeconomic policies are now consistent with lower inflation: the fiscal deficit is narrowing, interest rates are painfully high and the imf has boosted the central bank’s foreign-exchange reserves. But inflation has its own momentum: it is high, because it was high, and is expected to remain so.

That final sentence kind of makes my skin crawl. I get that rising inflation expectations can boost velocity, but let’s get serious. There’s no mystery here; there are actual concrete steps that lead to high inflation:

I guess Argentina doesn’t have a low birth rate like Japan. You know, the “demographics” that supposedly cause “lowflation”.

This caught my eye:

Moore said on “This Week” that one of the most compelling reasons he should be on the Fed Board is because he was “one of the first economists” to criticize the Fed for raising interest rates in December.

“I got very angry about it and I said this was economic malpractice. It was a terrible decision by the Fed. The stock market fell by 2,500 points in the subsequent weeks of that,” he said. “And then, of course, the Fed had to reverse course, put its tail between its legs and admit that people like Donald Trump and I were right and that they were wrong.

Where to begin.  The Fed has not “admitted” that Trump was right.  Nor has it reversed the interest rate increase that Steve Moore thought was going to have a disastrous effect on the economy.  So how has the economy done since the Fed foolishly raised rates in December?  Moore continues:

“And incidentally, George, ever since then the economy has been on this surge.”  

So the Fed decision to raise rates has been followed by a “surge”.  And this proves that the Fed was mistaken to raise rates?

Presumably Moore has something else in mind, perhaps the Fed’s decision to back off from its plan for future rate increases.  But if the economy really is surging, I’m having trouble understanding how this proves the December rate increase was a mistake.  

If Moore were an average American I would not pick on his confusion over the distinction between interest rate increases and forward guidance.  But he’s not an average American, he’s a candidate for the Fed.  If he makes it to the Board I suspect that he’s going to be in way over his head, and hence relatively ineffective.  

PS.  Saturday’s post quoting Jonah Goldberg was highly critical of conservatives. In fairness, there are still a few sensible people out there:

Judge Andrew Napolitano

President Trump turned on Fox News personality Judge Andrew Napolitano after the legal analyst issued a sharp rebuke of the president’s actions outlined in special counsel Robert Mueller’s report as “immoral, criminal, defenseless and condemnable.”

J.W. Verret

J.W. Verret, a George Mason University law professor who served on President Donald Trump’s transition team, is calling on Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings in the wake of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report.

“This is serious stuff,” Verret told CNN’s Don Lemon in an interview Tuesday. “The Mueller report I think is something you can’t look away from. I mean you have to admit it: The emperor has no clothes.”

Mitt Romney

Republican Sen. Mitt Romney issued a sharp rebuke of President Donald Trump on Friday following the release of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, saying he was “sickened” by details revealed in the document.

“I am sickened at the extent and pervasiveness of dishonesty and misdirection by individuals in the highest office of the land, including the President. I am also appalled that, among other things, fellow citizens working in a campaign for president welcomed help from Russia,” the Utah Republican said in a statement.

But the report “completely exonerated” Trump.

Tyler Cowen has a Bloomberg post that discusses what type of person should be nominated for a position on the Board of Governors at the Fed. It’s a good piece and I don’t see anything with which to to disagree. The essay clearly explains why people like Herman Cain, Steve Moore and Scott Sumner should never get near the Board. But there are a couple of omissions that I’d like to discuss:

1. Tyler omits one of the most important criteria—personal integrity.

2.  The Fed’s structure should be changed.  As with the Bank of England, there should be a committee composed entirely of experts on monetary policy, and another committee of experts on bank regulation.  We don’t ask a single agency to do both securities industry and environmental regulations, so why have one committee do both monetary policy and banking regulation?  The two fields are completely unrelated.  Very few people are experts in both macro and micro.

3.  A more decentralized Fed would allow more weight to be placed on expertise for monetary policymakers, and relatively less weight on managerial skills.  Right now the Board basically runs the entire Fed, or at least the DC part of the Fed.  That’s a big organization.  I’d like a structure where having Bernanke or Yellen chair the monetary committee is just as effective as having Larry Summers chair the committee.  Right now, Summers would be the more effective chair, for the various reasons that Tyler outlines (political/managerial skills, etc.)  That’s unfortunate, as Bernanke and Yellen are slightly better monetary experts.

Of course even in my ideal system the chair of the monetary committee would need some managerial/political/communication skills, but certainly less than today.  I’d like a structure where Bernanke and Yellen’s managerial skills are completely adequate, although I’m under no illusions that any plausible structure would make me a good candidate for the Fed.

Off topic, another Bloomberg piece had this to say:

At times last year Fed policy makers sounded open to using higher interest rates to lean against potentially over-exuberant financial markets, said Jonathan Wright, a professor at Johns Hopkins University and a former Fed economist.

Case in point: New York Fed President John Williams said in October that the central bank’s rate increases would help reduce risk-taking in financial markets, though he added that was not their principal purpose.

Backed Off

Such talk has since faded. “There doesn’t seem to be the same idea of having tighter monetary policy so as to lessen the risk of asset bubbles developing,” Wright said.

This isn’t surprising to market monetarists, who predicted that if the Fed tried to target financial stability they would lose control of their inflation/employment target. Fortunately, the Fed has seen the light. If only they’d asked us a few years ago and not wasted all that effort on the chimera of using monetary policy to prevent asset price “bubbles”.