Larry Summers and the politicization of the Fed

By Felix Salmon
August 29, 2013
Ezra Klein has an excellent piece on Larry Summers today, basically saying that he's "the overwhelming favorite" to become the next Fed chair just because he's an old Clinton hand, and is trusted by all the other old Clinton hands with whom Barack Obama has surrounded himself.

" data-share-img="" data-share="twitter,facebook,linkedin,reddit,google" data-share-count="true">

Ezra Klein has an excellent piece on Larry Summers today, basically saying that he’s “the overwhelming favorite” to become the next Fed chair just because he’s an old Clinton hand, and is trusted by all the other old Clinton hands with whom Barack Obama has surrounded himself. (Interestingly, that’s a phenomenon unique to the economic team: no other department exhibits the same trait.)

The top slots on the economic team are all held by members of the Clinton clique. Sperling leads the National Economic Council. Lew is secretary of the Treasury. Furman is chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. Sylvia Matthews Burwell, deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget during the Clinton administration, now heads OMB…

It stretches credulity to believe that a pure meritocratic process has simply and ineluctably led to the same six or seven people cycling among positions.

Klein’s thesis, when it comes to economic appointments, is that “the bar for each appointment is that the economic team already likes the candidate and knows he or she is good at the job and will work well with the other members of the team”. The reality of economic appointments to date is entirely consistent with that thesis, and I, for one, am convinced.

But here’s the problem: such a mechanism is a bad idea in principle, a bad idea in practice, and an especially bad idea when it comes to the Fed chairmanship in particular.

In principle, it’s even harder for a team like this one to learn from its mistakes than it is for an individual to do so. When the world changes, individual technocrats tend to change with it. But when a small, close-knit team is put in charge of running the economic policy of the global hegemon, they create the facts on the ground. In practice, what that has meant is a depressingly predictable cycle of laissez-faire regulatory policy leading to crises, which are solved with massive bailouts, which leave the financial sector largely unscathed, and free to continue taking excessive risks, safe in the knowledge that if and when things blow up again, there will be yet another bailout.

This cycle creates what I call Obama’s dangerously heroic view of economic technocrats — a view which, it should go without saying, works very much to the advantage of the very advisers who have helped him develop it. It’s a view which places crisis-management skills far above crisis-prevention skills, and which considers crisis-management experience as being uniquely valuable. It’s also a view which makes it almost unthinkable for Larry Summers not to be nominated to the Fed: short of nominating Terry Checki to the position, it’s hard to imagine a candidate with more crisis experience than Summers.

But it’s one thing having groupthink within the White House — it’s the job of a disciplined executive branch to implement clearly-articulated policies, and if the populace doesn’t like it, they can kick the incumbents out at the next election. It’s something else entirely to take one of the most central — and most political — members of the White House team, and nominate him to lead the independent board of governors of the Federal Reserve.

Make no mistake: Summers would be the most political Fed chair in living memory. Greenspan was pretty bad, especially when he testified — in clear support of the Bush administration’s tax cuts — that we had reason to be worried about budget surpluses. But Summers has been one of Obama’s closest economic advisers since the day that Obama took office: he’s much closer to Obama than Greenspan was to Bush.

Summers has spent most of the past five years doing everything in his power to shape and advance Obama’s agenda. Obama, of course, is very happy about this, and would love to reward Summers for his loyalty by handing him the Fed chairmanship.

Summers is not a consensus-builder; he’s the kind of person who, as chairman, would be convinced that he was right, and who would bully the rest of the board into doing exactly what he wanted them to do. (In this, he would have the active help of Obama, who would certainly nominate Summers-friendly names to the multitude of open board positions, and to the vice-chairmanship.) The result would be a central bank which had, to a first approximation, zero independence from the government, at least so long as Obama is president.

A non-independent central bank is a bad thing; a bullying central bank chairman who’s determined to get his own way is also a bad thing. (The Fed is run by a diverse board of governors for a reason.) But put the two together, and you get a uniquely toxic combination, a way to fulfill all the craziest conspiracy theories of Ron Paul. Having what Klein calls the “Clinton clique” in sole command of Obama’s economic policy is bad enough. But it would be much worse if they essentially managed to engineer a hostile takeover of the Federal Reserve Board.

When Tony Blair became prime minister of the UK in 1997, the first thing he did was to make the Bank of England independent. It was a signal that he was committed to orthodox economic policy, and that he was willing to be punished by an independent central bank should his policies go awry. It didn’t exactly work out that way, in the end, but his initial decision was clearly the right one, and came from a position of strength and self-confidence.

If Obama nominates Summers to the Fed, the message will be the exact opposite: that he’s not going to be comfortable unless he can install his own man to run the show. Obama, it seems, can’t trust Yellen to do the right thing — or maybe he worries that her actions will reflect the consensus of the board as a whole, and will therefore be less predictable and controllable. So he’s going to pass her over, and put a political operative in charge instead, albeit a political operative with genuine economic chops.

That’s a move even Clinton would never have dared make: he kept Greenspan at the Fed for his whole presidency. And it sets a horrible precedent: the next Republican president will henceforth have no compunctions whatsoever about appointing a party hack to the post. From here on in, if Summers gets the job, we won’t just be voting for president in presidential elections. We’ll be voting for Fed chair, too. And the Fed will become just as politicized as the Supreme Court has become.

Comments
20 comments so far

I would put it less kindly than Ezra Klein. Obama outsourced his economic policy to Bob Rubin and his acolytes.

Posted by Sechel | Report as abusive

Come on, Felix. It’s all about appeasing a donor base. Wall Street Democrats want Summers and they have the money. Yellen has no deep pocketed constituency. Obama may ruffle the feathers of the Left with a Summers appointment but he knows they aren’t taking their votes elsewhere.

I think that you’re imbuing the Fed chair with more importance than it deserves. With the crisis behind us and another of equal magnitude unlikely any time soon the job will and should revert to a lesser role. Perhaps we should be less attuned to the new chairperson, who is likely to be captured by the political class as well as those regulated, and more concerned about changing the rules of the banking game, say by redefining capital adequacy.

Posted by TomLindmark | Report as abusive

As I commented on your Aug 20th post about Neil Irwin’s post:

“It bothers me that any Administration would groupthink economic policy with the chairperson (not chairman) of the Central Bank.”

I’m just surprised that this argument — that Summers is a group player — was allowed to slide for so long.

Posted by GRRR | Report as abusive

This is news? That appointments made by politicians are political?

I remember many positions were filled this way by the King Bush II administration, and there was much commentary at the time that all his appointments were too politically motivated, with as you rightly say, the Supreme Court leading the way. But Bernanke was also a Bush nominee, no? And none of Bush’s nominees for anything were ever anything other than GOP faithfuls.

Posted by FifthDecade | Report as abusive

I like the assumption that the job requires a superhuman amount of brain power or financial acumen. Couldn’t you really substitute the title Chairman … with The Least Intimidating Guy We Could Find Who Would Take The Job? Then the question becomes is Summers intimidating or just really offensive? Hard one? Not really, the latter. On so many levels ..

Posted by Woltmann | Report as abusive

Uh-oh! Summers could be less amenable to dissenting (but correct) opinions than Greenspan was to Ned Gramlich, whose warnings of the sub-prime crisis were kicked to the curb by the Great Oz.

Posted by StuartG | Report as abusive

What if Larry turns out to be a success at Fed; what will his co-conspirators (economists) say or write next?

Elsewhere Krugman is writing about *war between economists*. Why?

The economic profession has not only lost its pulpit but they’ve suffered enormous professional prestige loss after 2008 financial meltdown.

Macroeconomists in particular are the culprits who lead us into the laissez faire capitalism of free markets which in 2008 finally brought the house of carts down!

Salmon was not a heretic…but part of the gang.

Posted by hariknaidu | Report as abusive

I had a similar thought so since I’m a Massachusetts resident I sent a letter to Senator Warren. Other people with senators on the banking committee should do the same. I doubt that Warner, Schumer or Menendez would listen, but RI with Jack Reed, Brown in OH and especially Merkley in OR seem very possible.

Posted by tuckerm | Report as abusive

Bankster Alert!

Posted by CraigPurcell | Report as abusive

Wasn’t Summers, Rubin, Geithner, Greenspan, Paulson
et al responsible for the 2008 meltdown?

Posted by CraigPurcell | Report as abusive

Wasn’t Summers, Rubin, Geithner, Greenspan, Paulson
et al responsible for the 2008 meltdown?

Posted by CraigPurcell | Report as abusive

Wasn’t Summers, Rubin, Geithner, Greenspan, Paulson
et al responsible for the 2008 meltdown?

Posted by CraigPurcell | Report as abusive

Wasn’t Summers, Rubin, Geithner, Greenspan, Paulson
et al responsible for the 2008 meltdown?

Posted by CraigPurcell | Report as abusive

Wasn’t Summers, Rubin, Geithner, Greenspan, Paulson
et al responsible for the 2008 meltdown?

Posted by CraigPurcell | Report as abusive

Wasn’t Summers, Rubin, Geithner, Greenspan, Paulson
et al responsible for the 2008 meltdown?

Posted by CraigPurcell | Report as abusive

Wasn’t Summers, Rubin, Geithner, Greenspan, Paulson
et al responsible for the 2008 meltdown?

Posted by CraigPurcell | Report as abusive

CraigPurcell: Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

This is what Felix said, and about this, now, he is correct:

“when a small, close-knit team is put in charge of running the economic policy of the global hegemon, they create the facts on the ground. In practice, what that has meant is a depressingly predictable cycle of laissez-faire regulatory policy leading to crises, which are solved with massive bailouts, which leave the financial sector largely unscathed, and free to continue taking excessive risks, safe in the knowledge that if and when things blow up again, there will be yet another bailout.”

AND

“Having what Klein calls the “Clinton clique” in sole command of Obama’s economic policy is bad enough. But it would be much worse if they essentially managed to engineer a hostile takeover of the Federal Reserve Board.”

which means that the Federal Reserve would be fully transformed into a political extension of the Supreme Court, and we would have complete unity of Executive and Judicial branches, with the full backing of the Obama-Fed.

Why doesn’t anyone care? I have lost all trust in Professor Bradford DeLong. Felix, you see more clearly, or maybe, you are more honest and brave. No one listens to you. When you were towing the line, although who knew for certain what “towing the line” was, not with certainty, a few years ago, you had lots of happy fans. Maybe you still do. I hope so. I am not happy, but at least I know that I’m not part of a Ron Paul conspiritard-fever dream. It is real, you are right. Oh Felix, this is so grim.

Posted by EllieK | Report as abusive

Great paintings! That is the type of info that are meant to be shared around the net. Disgrace on Google for not positioning this publish upper! Come on over and consult with my web site . Thank you =)

We are a group of volunteers and starting a new scheme in our community. Your web site offered us with valuable info to work on. You’ve done a formidable job and our whole community will be grateful to you.

Before the game, perhaps everyone thought Li Na would win, but certainly can not think she can so “terrorist” to win, after all, Jankovic is a former women “one elder sister”, she in the 3 game of the match against Li Na in the recent three game winning streak

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/