Why We Need an Explicit Nominal Target for Monetary Policy

So we learn from the 60 minutes interview with Ben Bernanke that if necessary there will be a QE3:

Scott Pelley: Do you anticipate a scenario in which you would commit to more than 600 billion?

Ben Bernanke: Oh, it’s certainly possible. And again, it depends on the efficacy of the program. It depends, on inflation. And finally it depends on how the economy looks.

This ad-hoc approach is exactly why we need a rules-based approach to QE. If the Fed had adopted an explicit nominal target–preferably a nominal GDP level target–and forcefully committed to maintain it no matter the cost, it is unlikely the Fed would need to keep announcing new rounds of QE. All the market would need to know is that the Fed is serious about hitting its nominal target. The rest would take of itself. The market would do the heavy lifting by automatically increasing nominal expectations to a level consistent with the target.

Instead, we get a piecemeal approach where explicit, large dollar security purchases are announced presumably to impress the market. We now know there are two problems with this approach. First, it invites criticism that may hinder the Fed’s ability to carry out QE. Some observers, for example, are fearful that the large expansions of the monetary base under QE will become inflationary. If these observers are influential they can create political pressure for the Fed. If the Fed were instead aiming for an explicit nominal target where the expansion of the monetary base would be endogenously determined, this concern would be muted. For there would be no need to announce large dollar security purchases. And, if the market itself did most of the heavy lifting as noted above, the increase in the monetary base probably would be less than under the current QE program. Second, this approach has not convinced the market that the Fed is serious about raising nominal expectations and thus nominal spending. This can be seen in the implied inflation rate from TIPS.

It is time to adopt an explicit nominal target. I nominate a nominal GDP level target.

Disclaimer: This page contains affiliate links. If you choose to make a purchase after clicking a link, we may receive a commission at no additional cost to you. Thank you for your support!

About David Beckworth 240 Articles

Affiliation: Texas State University

David Beckworth is an assistant professor of economics at Texas State University in San Marcos, Texas.

Visit: Macro and Other Market Musings

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.