Ben Bernanke and the Winner’s Curse

The Torment of the Fed’s Chairman-designate

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


In economics there is a phenomenon known as the “winner’s curse” whereby the winner of an auction over-pays. The most that she should have paid is the second-highest bid, which is the highest value attached by all other bidders. This curse provides a useful analogy for thinking about the recent selection of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan’s replacement. There is a good chance that the winner, Ben Bernanke, may end up with a bout of the winner’s curse.

Within Washington there is a new trend to appoint academic research economists to leading economic policy positions. Several recent Federal Reserve governors and district bank chairpersons are former academics or researchers, as is Chairman-designate Bernanke. This trend is disturbing. Academic economists believe in economic models. Though the economy is subject to shocks that make outcomes unpredictable, the economy’s structure is supposedly known through their models. This view contrasts sharply with that of Chairman Greenspan who held strong ideological convictions about markets and government, but believed the economy’s structure was unknowable. This belief kept Greenspan open despite the strength of his convictions, and it made him an uncanny central banker. The new danger is that academic policymakers will be less open and more inclined to ignore new facts in favour of their theories.

That said, Chairman-designate Bernanke is probably one of the most open-minded academics. He began his career studying the devastating effects of the Great Depression’s deflation on the U.S. banking system, which explains his concern about deflation in the last recession and why he advocated such deep interest rate cuts. Unfortunately, financial markets have less sympathy with this view. Consequently, they may initially punish him as being potentially “soft” on inflation. One curiosum about his pedigree is that in many regards his intellectual profile better fits a new Democrat. That raises a puzzle regarding the basis of the romance between Bernanke and the Bush administration.

As Federal Reserve Chairman, Bernanke faces several major challenges. The first is that he is taking office at an extremely difficult economic moment. On one hand, the economy exhibits significant financial fragility that calls for interest rate caution: on the other, it is suffering a bout of oil price inflation. Though higher interest rates are not appropriate for dealing with such inflation, financial markets deem that they are and are pushing for higher rates. This comes just as the “Greenspan premium,” earned through a decade of costly anti-inflation policy, is being replaced by the “Bernanke discount.” The net result is that Chairman Bernanke will have less room for manoeuvre and will be under greater pressure to raise rates to prove his anti-inflation credentials. That could spell trouble for the U.S. economy.

A second challenge is that there is a very good chance of a very hard landing within the next two years. Economic policy is like a game of hot potato, and the person who gets blamed is the person holding the potato when the music stops. Chairman Greenspan baked this potato, but it is likely Chairman Bernanke who will end up holding it. If the housing bubble bursts and recession ensues, lower interest rates will likely have a similar effect to “pushing on a string.” This is because lower rates will not benefit households that re-financed previously when rates were down, while others will find it difficult to refinance because home values will have fallen.

A final challenge facing the new Chairman is how to deal with asset price bubbles without recourse to the blunderbuss of higher interest rates, which harms innocent economic sectors. Here, Bernanke will have to reverse his earlier views. This has already started regarding his views on inflation-targeting, which now looks ill-advised in light of today’s complex inflation and Europe’s poor economic performance under inflation-targeting. Bernanke has written that asset prices should not be considered independently of their impact on overall inflation. If it transpires that there has been a housing bubble that wreaks widespread havoc when it bursts, he will have to change his views. In principle, that is quite easy. The difficult part is choosing to do so.

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE

We’re falling behind our online fundraising goals and we can’t sustain coming up short on donations month after month. Perhaps you’ve heard? It is impossibly hard in the news business right now, with layoffs intensifying and fancy new startups and funding going kaput.

The crisis facing journalism and democracy isn’t going away anytime soon. And neither is Mother Jones, our readers, or our unique way of doing in-depth reporting that exists to bring about change.

Which is exactly why, despite the challenges we face, we just took a big gulp and joined forces with The Center for Investigative Reporting, a team of ace journalists who create the amazing podcast and public radio show Reveal.

If you can part with even just a few bucks, please help us pick up the pace of donations. We simply can’t afford to keep falling behind on our fundraising targets month after month.

Editor-in-Chief Clara Jeffery said it well to our team recently, and that team 100 percent includes readers like you who make it all possible: “This is a year to prove that we can pull off this merger, grow our audiences and impact, attract more funding and keep growing. More broadly, it’s a year when the very future of both journalism and democracy is on the line. We have to go for every important story, every reader/listener/viewer, and leave it all on the field. I’m very proud of all the hard work that’s gotten us to this moment, and confident that we can meet it.”

Let’s do this. If you can right now, please support Mother Jones and investigative journalism with an urgently needed donation today.

payment methods

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE

We’re falling behind our online fundraising goals and we can’t sustain coming up short on donations month after month. Perhaps you’ve heard? It is impossibly hard in the news business right now, with layoffs intensifying and fancy new startups and funding going kaput.

The crisis facing journalism and democracy isn’t going away anytime soon. And neither is Mother Jones, our readers, or our unique way of doing in-depth reporting that exists to bring about change.

Which is exactly why, despite the challenges we face, we just took a big gulp and joined forces with The Center for Investigative Reporting, a team of ace journalists who create the amazing podcast and public radio show Reveal.

If you can part with even just a few bucks, please help us pick up the pace of donations. We simply can’t afford to keep falling behind on our fundraising targets month after month.

Editor-in-Chief Clara Jeffery said it well to our team recently, and that team 100 percent includes readers like you who make it all possible: “This is a year to prove that we can pull off this merger, grow our audiences and impact, attract more funding and keep growing. More broadly, it’s a year when the very future of both journalism and democracy is on the line. We have to go for every important story, every reader/listener/viewer, and leave it all on the field. I’m very proud of all the hard work that’s gotten us to this moment, and confident that we can meet it.”

Let’s do this. If you can right now, please support Mother Jones and investigative journalism with an urgently needed donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate