Episode Summary
Executive Summary: Chris Michener argues that price stability is shaped less by a single monetary variable than by institutional credibility, fiscal backing, and policy regime design. Using bimetallism, the gold standard, and modern central bank balance sheets, he shows that commitments work only when markets believe policymakers can and will defend them. His recent research finds today’s central bank losses stem mainly from large post-crisis balance sheets and reserve remuneration, not disinflation itself.
Main Topics: How money and price levels are anchored (Priority: 5/5): The conversation frames the price level as a product of monetary standards, institutional commitments, and credibility rather than a single theory such as monetarism or fiscal theory alone. Bimetallism and the transition to gold (Priority: 5/5): Michener explains how gold-silver systems worked, why market ratios mattered, and how the 19th century shift to gold emerged through accident, policy, and network effects. Credibility, politics, and the gold standard (Priority: 5/5): The gold standard anchored prices only when governments could credibly commit to defend parity; this was easier in eras with limited franchise and weaker democratic pressure. Why emerging markets struggled on gold (Priority: 4/5): He argues peripheral countries often could not sustain gold commitments because they faced asymmetric shocks, banking crises, and weaker fiscal/monetary capacity. Central bank losses and modern operating systems (Priority: 5/5): Michener’s paper on advanced-economy central banks shows that recent losses are driven largely by ample-reserve regimes, reserve remuneration, and QE-era balance sheet structures. Historical comparison: Volcker vs. post-2020 inflation (Priority: 4/5): The paper compares the Volcker disinflation to recent rate hikes and finds that disinflation alone does not generate losses; modern balance sheet design does. Independence, political economy, and lender-of-last-resort roles (Priority: 4/5): The discussion closes by linking balance sheet losses to central bank independence and broader institutional design, including crisis lending and political oversight.
Key Arguments: The price level is best understood through institutional commitments and credibility, not just money growth or fiscal variables in isolation. Bimetallism and gold standards worked because market arbitrage pinned down mint ratios and limited issuer discretion. The gold standard’s success depended on political willingness to prioritize external balance over domestic employment; limited franchise made that easier. For many peripheral or emerging-market economies, gold commitment was not fully credible because they faced shocks and could not easily defend parity. Recent central bank losses are mostly a consequence of modern operating frameworks—ample reserves, interest on reserves, and QE-lengthened balance sheets—not disinflation alone. Counterfactual tests show that raising reserve remuneration or balance sheet size alone does not reproduce today’s losses; the losses require the full modern balance sheet legacy. Central bank losses matter mainly because they can weaken perceptions of independence and invite political scrutiny, which can undermine credibility. Markets anticipate credible central banks, which helps stabilize inflation expectations before policy fully bites; credibility is built by institutions and past performance.
Data Points: US central bank losses: about $192 billion - Combined losses for the Federal Reserve in 2023 and 2024 mentioned in the discussion of recent central bank operating losses. ECB losses: about $9 billion - Losses for the ECB over 2023 and 2024 cited as part of the cross-country comparison. Study sample: 10 advanced economies - Michener’s paper analyzes balance sheet outcomes across ten advanced-economy central banks. Study period: 1970 to 1990 - The paper reconstructs and harmonizes central bank balance sheets across the 1970s and 1980s. Return on assets pre-Volcker: about 2% - Average profitability across the sample before Volcker-style disinflation. Return on assets post-Volcker: about 3.4% - Average profitability across the sample during/after the Volcker period. Equity-to-asset ratio pre-Volcker: around 6% - Average central bank capital position before the disinflation episode. Equity-to-asset ratio post-Volcker: just under 18% - Average capital position during/after the Volcker period, indicating stronger balance sheets. Fed short-term rate peak: around 20% - Volcker-era peak interest rates referenced as the benchmark disinflation shock. Inflation peak in 1979-1980: just under 12% in 1979; over 14% in 1980 - U.S. inflation environment motivating the Volcker tightening comparison. Balance sheet reserves share today: about 42% of assets - Modern ample-reserve framework compared with earlier corridor-system balance sheets. Balance sheet reserves share then: about 16% of assets - Older central bank balance sheet composition used for the counterfactual comparison. Portfolio average maturity today: about 6 years - Used to illustrate the long-duration legacy of QE-era assets. Portfolio average maturity in the historical sample: about 3 years - Shorter-duration central bank portfolios in the 1970s and 1980s. Asset yield today: around 1% - Low-yield modern asset portfolio contributing to operating losses when rates rise. Historical asset yields: 5% to 6%, later 9% to 10% - Higher yields on shorter-duration historical assets that helped central banks remain profitable.
Pivotal Quotes: "the markets pinned down the ability of the monetary authority to issue more" — Chris Michener: Explaining how metallic standards constrained money creation and influenced the price level. "you can't have these three points of a triangle simultaneously" — Chris Michener: Describing the international trilemma: fixed exchange rates, capital mobility, and independent monetary policy. "it is really kind of a legacy of balance sheets" — Chris Michener: Summarizing why modern central bank losses arise from post-crisis operating frameworks rather than disinflation alone.
Implications: Price stability depends on credible institutions and political support, not just a policy rate. For central banks, balance-sheet design and independence matter for both inflation control and public confidence, making operating framework reviews increasingly important.
About Macro Musings
Hosted by David Beckworth of the Mercatus Center, Macro Musings pulls back the curtain on the important macroeconomic issues of the past, present, and future.