Sunday, September 20, 2009

Priceless: How the Federal Reserve Bought the Economics Profession


By Ryan Grim, Huffington Post. Posted September 14, 2009.


The Federal Reserve so thoroughly dominates the field of economics that real criticism of the central bank has become a career liability for economists.

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Mythmaking 101: Why Millions Have Bought into 'Death Panel' Propaganda
Kenny Smith

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Why We're Fighting a Trade War with China Over Tires
Marie Cocco

DrugReporter:
What's the Matter with San Diego? An Anti-Marijuana City in the Green Oasis of California
Phillip S. Smith

Environment:
Can Condoms Save Us from Climate Change?
Tara Lohan

Health and Wellness:
Unbelievable: As a Lesbian Mother, I Have to Pay More For Health Care
Elizabeth G. Hines

Immigration:
Arguments Against "Birth Right" Citizenship Run Against Constitutional Principles
Elizabeth B. Wydra

Media and Technology:
Time Magazine's Dishonest and Incompetent Profile on Glenn Beck Enables His Sick Lies
Jamison Foser

Movie Mix:
Michael Moore's 'Capitalism' Flick Rips into Crimes of Wall Street
Xan Brooks

Politics:
Racism in America Doesn't Stop with Glenn Beck and His Fans -- It's in Our Health Care Debate Too
Allison Kilkenny

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
The Insurance Industry's Heartless Logic: Getting Beaten by Your Husband Is an Excuse to Deny Coverage
Ryan Grim

Rights and Liberties:
Why We Need a Government Agency to Defend the Pursuit of Happiness
Walter Mosley

Sex and Relationships:
What Happened When I Had Sex With Married Women I Met on a Website for Cheaters
Jack Harrison

Take Action:
Stop GOP Hooligans From Stalling Health Reform
Byard Duncan

Water:
Take Back the Tap and Keep Supporting Municipal Water Systems
Robin Madel

World:
Why I Threw My Shoes At Bush
Mutadhar al-Zaidi

More stories by Ryan Grim

The Federal Reserve, through its extensive network of consultants, visiting scholars, alumni and staff economists, so thoroughly dominates the field of economics that real criticism of the central bank has become a career liability for members of the profession, an investigation by the Huffington Post has found.

This dominance helps explain how, even after the Fed failed to foresee the greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression, the central bank has largely escaped criticism from academic economists. In the Fed's thrall, the economists missed it, too.

"The Fed has a lock on the economics world," says Joshua Rosner, a Wall Street analyst who correctly called the meltdown. "There is no room for other views, which I guess is why economists got it so wrong."

One critical way the Fed exerts control on academic economists is through its relationships with the field's gatekeepers. For instance, at the Journal of Monetary Economics, a must-publish venue for rising economists, more than half of the editorial board members are currently on the Fed payroll -- and the rest have been in the past.

The Fed failed to see the housing bubble as it happened, insisting that the rise in housing prices was normal. In 2004, after "flipping" had become a term cops and janitors were using to describe the way to get rich in real estate, then-Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said that "a national severe price distortion [is] most unlikely." A year later, current Chairman Ben Bernanke said that the boom "largely reflect strong economic fundamentals."

The Fed also failed to sufficiently regulate major financial institutions, with Greenspan -- and the dominant economists -- believing that the banks would regulate themselves in their own self-interest.

Despite all this, Bernanke has been nominated for a second term by President Obama.

In the field of economics, the chairman remains a much-heralded figure, lauded for reaction to a crisis generated, in the first place, by the Fed itself. Congress is even considering legislation to greatly expand the powers of the Fed to systemically regulate the financial industry.

Paul Krugman, in Sunday's New York Times magazine, did his own autopsy of economics, asking "How Did Economists Get It So Wrong?" Krugman concludes that "[e]conomics, as a field, got in trouble because economists were seduced by the vision of a perfect, frictionless market system."

So who seduced them?

The Fed did it.

Three Decades of Domination

The Fed has been dominating the profession for about three decades. "For the economics profession that came out of the [second world] war, the Federal Reserve was not a very important place as far as they were concerned, and their views on monetary policy were not framed by a working relationship with the Federal Reserve. So I would date it to maybe the mid-1970s," says University of Texas economics professor -- and Fed critic -- James Galbraith. "The generation that I grew up under, which included both Milton Friedman on the right and Jim Tobin on the left, were independent of the Fed. They sent students to the Fed and they influenced the Fed, but there wasn't a culture of consulting, and it wasn't the same vast network of professional economists working there."

But by 1993, when former Fed Chairman Greenspan provided the House banking committee with a breakdown of the number of economists on contract or employed by the Fed, he reported that 189 worked for the board itself and another 171 for the various regional banks. Adding in statisticians, support staff and "officers" -- who are generally also economists -- the total number came to 730. And then there were the contracts. Over a three-year period ending in October 1994, the Fed awarded 305 contracts to 209 professors worth a total of $3 million.

Just how dominant is the Fed today?

The Federal Reserve's Board of Governors employs 220 PhD economists and a host of researchers and support staff, according to a Fed spokeswoman. The 12 regional banks employ scores more. (HuffPost placed calls to them but was unable to get exact numbers.) The Fed also doles out millions of dollars in contracts to economists for consulting assignments, papers, presentations, workshops, and that plum gig known as a "visiting scholarship." A Fed spokeswoman says that exact figures for the number of economists contracted with weren't available. But, she says, the Federal Reserve spent $389.2 million in 2008 on "monetary and economic policy," money spent on analysis, research, data gathering, and studies on market structure; $433 million is budgeted for 2009.


Digg! Share on facebook submit to reddit Bookmark on Delicious Stumble This TweetThis

See more stories tagged with: economics, wall street, federal reserve, economists, monetary policy

Ryan Grim is an editorial intern at Washington City Paper.

No comments: