Bill Clinton for Fed chairman

June 16, 2009

As long as we are politicizing the Federal Reserve and shredding its independence, why not Bill Clinton for Fed chairman? It’s not as loopy an idea as you might think. While the Fed chief has typically been an economist or banker, that’s not always true of central bankers in other countries. The former head of Iceland’s central bank, David Oddsson, previously served as that nation’s prime minister.

The thing is, when you look at the outlines of the Obama administration’s plan to revamp the U.S. financial regulatory system, a career politician as Fed chairman begins to kinda-sorta make sense. (Although Oddsson did turn out to be a bust.) According to an op-ed by White House economist Lawrence Summers and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner that generally described the plan, America’s central bank would grow in power and responsibility as it morphs into a systemic risk regulator. In addition to its continued monetary policy role, the SuperFed would supervise large and interconnected firms whose failure could threaten the stability of the financial system. (Why juice up the Fed? Since the central bank serves as a lender of last resort for the financial system, the government argues, why not give the power to help prevent problems for happening in the first place? That makes sense only if one overlooks the Fed’s so-so record as a regulator. One guess about who was supposed to be keeping tabs on Citigroup.)

Regulation by its very nature is a political act, balancing competing interests and claims from various stakeholders. (As it is, the Fed’s enlarged role during the financial crisis has drawn such lawmaker scrutiny that it is hiring its own lobbyist.) And how might those concerns mesh with the Fed’s role as an inflation fighter? The Fed already has a dual mandate — price stability and full employment — that some hawks argue serves as a policy distraction. A broader regulatory portfolio would further muck up the Fed’s mission. In another crisis, Regulator Fed might be tempted to argue for forbearance, so Monetary Fed wouldn’t have to resort to quantitative easing.

Charles Calomiris of Columbia Business School has pointed out, for example, that during the 1980s emerging market debt crisis many regulators loosened capital standards because they feared the macroeconomic impact of so many banks going bust. And what if a situation arises where what’s good for price stability is bad for the financial system?

Moreover, the White House plan would put in place a “council of regulators” to deal with systemic risk. How exactly the Fed would interact with that group is unknown, but it’s hardly a stretch to think a politician’s skill set would be helpful. And whose people skills are better than America’s 42nd president? Of course, a better choice would be to get the Fed out of the financial supervision game altogether and let it focus on monetary policy. Unfortunately, the Obama White House has gone out of its way to avoid political turf battles that would arise from a radical regulatory overhaul, which is why it is proposing so little consolidation of existing regulatory agencies. In fact, it might even be adding a new one in the form of a financial products safety commission.

There does look to be some good in the regulatory plan, particularly a push to make the originators of securitized loans keep some skin in the game. And it seems likely that at least the Office of Thrift Supervision is going to get the axe. Good ideas both. But while there may be a case for a financial regulator with systemic oversight, a SuperFed is not the answer.

13 comments

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/

You say: FED would grow in power and responsibility… What responsibility? Responsible to whom? This could be a joke.

Posted by Dusan | Report as abusive

Just what we need. Someone who’s honesty and integrity is in question running the Federal Reserve. What more can be said!!

Posted by David | Report as abusive

Right… as found by the inquiry which lead to his impeachment as a morally bankrupt and unethical individual, Clinton certainly would be a great choice… are you nuts??

Posted by Ima Beelever | Report as abusive

Bubbs has gone away, let’s leave him gone.

Posted by boski | Report as abusive

I think Monica will do a better job, at least she has experience making things go up…..

Posted by Andres | Report as abusive

BILL CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT 2012!

Posted by bob | Report as abusive

so good posts ! seen from old europe france lyon…I really had a smiling and frankly laughing time reading these accurate remarks concerning Bill’s coming back ! and I would add : for Obama, Hilary is enough tribute to the past,don’t kill the FED !

Posted by pierre | Report as abusive

Yeh that’s just what we need. One of the most violently oppressive and morally corrupt presidents in history running the most corrupt organization on the planet.

Look up what Chomsky has to say about Clinton – interesting to say the least. And I don’t mean sexual affairs – I mean criminal warmongering, enslaving third world countries and such.

Posted by Mike | Report as abusive

Dumb idea!

Remember G. William Miller? Carter appointed him Fed Chairman in January 1978, another time of crises. Miller was the Chariman of the Board of Textron and is without a doubt the least respected Fed Chariman in history. After a little more than a year in office Carter had to move him out of the Fed and made him Treasury Secretary in August of 1979. With good reason, he remains to this day the only Fed Chariman without a background in finance or economics.

Miller was a very political figure. He oppossed raising interst rates to fight inflation. He was a disaster – his ignorance and politicizing of the Fed resulted in a run on the dollar and stagflation.

Miller was followed by Paul Volker who was forced to wring inflation out ot the economy will doubel digit interet rates.

The Fed is not a place for politicians or on-the-job training. Your idea is nonsense.

Posted by Wayne | Report as abusive

Politicians have proven they don’t know the va;ue of money. Just look at the current budget to see them in action.And Bill Clinton, a first class scalawag? No, thanks! Honesty & integrity are essential to the post and Mr. Clinton lacks both.

Posted by bblasl | Report as abusive

Clinton? He would probably “blow it” ……….

Posted by O. Yeah | Report as abusive

Horrible idea. Bill helped put us in the trouble we’re in today. A much better choice would be the likes of Ron Paul or Peter Schiff.

Posted by jason | Report as abusive

Great comparison – the former chairman of Iceland’s Fed was not an economist. Perhaps you forgot that Iceland went bankrupt.

Posted by John | Report as abusive