Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Your comments flag an important issue: the political leadership and the central bank must trust each other. In Europe, they obviously don't, the result of German mistrust of the "Club Med" countries, and Bundesbank taking its revenge on Kohl's (erroneous, with hindsight) decision to peg the ost mark to the Deutschemark after reunification.

Clinton/Rubin is a great example of an executive and a central bank working together to create favorable economic conditions. Chirac/Trichet is the exact opposite, leading to the chicken and egg pointed out by De Long.

That said, I don't really see how Europe's interest rates, at 2% with 2% inflation, can be seen in any way as tight. The ECB has been subject to an unimaginable amount of criticism, often contradictory (coming from the anglo-saxon business press and the London traders on one side and the unreconstructed French marxists and other assorted lefties and populists on the other), which in my view shows that they have been mostly right.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Jun 21st, 2005 at 02:44:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Rubin actually spent his years in the Clinton Administration as the Deputy Secretary (#2) and then as the Secretary of the Treasury Department.  In that role, he was the executive's interface with the Central Bank.

IMHO, the reason why Rubin was effective is that he came from Wall Street and could explain U.S. policy to the financial and trading communities.  Since that's the community that the Federal Reserve tries to send its messages to with its rate changes, there was good balance.

It's been bizarre watching the tail wag the dog in the Bush Administration.  Greenspan has been twisting himself into a pretzel to justify the executive's irresponsible macroeconomic policies (huge tax cuts with huge deficits), while Bush's Treasury people have no understanding of how to talk traderspeak.
by Hoya90 (hoya90jmk-at-yahoo-dot-com) on Tue Jun 21st, 2005 at 03:09:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
On the one hand, zero real short-term interest rates is pretty loose monetary policy, as you say.

But, if you compare Europe to the US, monetary conditions are much tighter in Europe, even though economic growth is slower there. Of course monetary conditions are extraordinarily loose over here in the US for any number of reasons -- low long-term rates, dollar depreciation, capital inflows from the rest of the world.

So it's not clear that's the right standard.

Notice though, that the ECB refi rate is still about 1/4 point above the "Taylor Rule" level:

Taylor's rule is a formula developed by Stanford economist John Taylor. It was designed to provide "recommendations" for how a central bank like the Federal Reserve should set short-term interest rates as economic conditions change to achieve both its short-run goal for stabilizing the economy and its long-run goal for inflation.

Specifically, the rule states that the "real" short-term interest rate (that is, the interest rate adjusted for inflation) should be determined according to three factors: (1) where actual inflation is relative to the targeted level that the Fed wishes to achieve, (2) how far economic activity is above or below its "full employment" level, and (3) what the level of the short-term interest rate is that would be consistent with full employment.

The rule "recommends" a relatively high interest rate (that is, a "tight" monetary policy) when inflation is above its target or when the economy is above its full employment level, and a relatively low interest rate ("easy" monetary policy) in the opposite situations.

So perhaps there is a bit more room for the ECB to reduce short-term rates, but they are not far from where we should expect them to be.

If you want to stimulate European growth to get the economy closer to full employment, however, maybe you have to be more aggressive than normal.

You could say the same thing with respect to fiscal policy: the big continental economies are all running pretty large budget deficits, but only half as large as the current US deficit, so you could argue either that it would be imprudent to increase deficits further, or that if you are really interested in spurring growth you may need to be more aggressive with tax cuts and spending increases than you might otherwise be.

It really is a dilemma, though, any way you look at it.

by TGeraghty on Tue Jun 21st, 2005 at 04:28:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series