The U.S. central bank, the Federal Reserve (Fed), began operations in 1913. Throughout its existence, the Fed has had its share of detractors, but there has been broad consensus as to the key role it plays in dealing with inflation and employment. During the Great Recession, when economic policy was often deadlocked between the two political parties, the Federal Reserve was seen by many as the adult in the room, playing a central role in determining the direction of the U.S. economy via a highly accommodative monetary policy and an aggressive buying of securities referred to as quantitative easing (QE). However, the landscape has changed over the last two years; to a backdrop of stronger economic growth, low unemployment, and gradually rising inflationary pressures, the Fed became less accommodative, raising rates six times. Its members are talking of more rate hikes to come. While many regard this as prudent policy with an eye to the next recession, the Fed has come under criticism from President Donald Trump, who has been vocal in his displeasure at the central bank’s rate-hiking policy.
The Trumpian displeasure at the Fed centers on what the U.S. leader regards as a threat to continued economic expansion. The Fed under Jerome Powell has raised interest rates three times in 2018 and is expected to raise rates again in December, with considerable discussion that the rate-raising cycle will continue through 2019 and possibly into 2020. The concern from the president is that Fed actions will eventually end the growth cycle and provoke a recession. Indeed, as the Fed removes liquidity in the market to contain inflationary pressures there is always a risk of too much monetary tightening.
Although President Trump has acknowledged that the Fed is traditionally independent of political influence, he has continued to attack it. On one occasion, he stated of Powell: “I’m just saying this: I’m very unhappy with the Fed because Obama had zero interest rates. Every time we do something great, he raises the interest rates.”
President Trump has also let it be known that “maybe” he regrets nominating Powell and that the Fed had “gone crazy” by tightening monetary policy. Moreover, he blamed the central bank for the October stock market correction.
The U.S. president’s vocal criticism of the Fed has not gone down well with most economists and foreign leaders, considering that the American central bank is a pillar of the global financial system. To put it mildly, what happens at the Fed has global impact. Generally speaking, there is considerable confidence in the Fed to be a nonpolitical force in maintaining a level of trust in the U.S. economy, its financial system and, by extension, the global financial system. It is believed that an effort by President Trump to bully the Fed on the policy front could have serious repercussions in global markets.
Calling the Fed crazy is not the best move to maintain confidence in the U.S. financial system, but President Trump is hardly the only U.S. president to see the central bank as a challenge. There is a long history in the United States of suspicion and resistance to too much concentration of financial power. The American political psyche evolved with a wariness of central power, which was a root cause of the American Revolution (i.e. such issues as taxation without representation). The friction between central authority (like the federal government) versus more local political units, like states and regions, was also evident in the writing of the Constitution, but also found a more violent outlet in such events as Shay’s Rebellion (1786–1787) and the Whiskey Rebellion (1791–1794). Presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe were clear in their suspicion of financial influence in the American economy, but it was Andrew Jackson, who was the most confrontational.
President Jackson took great delight in making certain that the Second Bank of the United States (which functioned as a central bank) did not receive a charter renewal. The bank was created in the aftermath of the War of 1812 to deal with the national debt, the disarray of an unregulated currency (this was well before the greenback) and a lack of fiscal order. There was also demand for a central bank from those parts of the country that were undergoing a shift from agriculture to industry. Jackson, however, believed the bank had too much power, was unconstitutional and corrupt. He managed to kill the bank by vetoing its charter renewal, but this ultimately led to a massive and unconstrained expansion of credit (from unregulated smaller regional banks that printed their own money), which ended in the Panic of 1837 and a deep multiyear recession. It also killed off any debate over a central bank until the early twentieth century.
The Panic of 1907 (caused by shrinking market liquidity, declining confidence of depositors and a move to regulate trust companies) revealed that the U.S. economy, then one of the world’s leading industrial powers, had a financial system that was unable to handle the needs of further industrial expansion without better management. After several years of often heated debate, it was agreed by Congress to create a central bank, the Federal Reserve System, with parts of the institution based in various regions across the country to dilute the power of the east coast banks based in New York City.
Throughout its decades of operation the Fed has not always been on the same page in terms of policy as U.S. presidents. The central bank’s mandate is to “promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices and moderate long term interest rates.”
Some Fed chairs were more reluctant to use interest rates to achieve their objectives than others. Fed chairs were known to have had their share of differences with U.S. Presidents, including Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson. Arthur Burns was noted for giving considerable ground to Richard Nixon, who stated on the day the new Fed head was appointed, “I hope that independently he will conclude that my views are the ones that should be followed.”