Milton Friedman on the Federal Reserve
71 passages for “the Federal Reserve”, 58 checked against the source. Page 5 of 8.
Full topic page: Monetary policy and the Federal Reserve
The Great Depression in the United States, far from being a sign of the inherent instability of the private enterprise system, is a testament to how much harm can be done by mistakes on the part of a few men when they wield vast power over the monetary system of a country.
Just as banks all around the country were closing, the Fed raised the discount rate; that's the rate they charge for loans to banks. Bank failures consequently increased spectacularly. We might have had an economic downturn in the thirties anyway, but in the absence of the Federal Reserve System—with its enormous power to make a bad situation worse—it wouldn't have been anything like the scale we experienced.
It would be highly desirable if Europe could have a common money, a single unified money, just as it's desirable for the United States that we have a single unified currency. But in order for that to be possible or desirable, you have to have a unified currency over an area in which people and goods move relatively freely, and in which there is enough homogeneity of interest so that severe political strains are not raised by divergent developments in different parts of the area.
Interview with Milton FriedmanInterview, 1992, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, The Region, Interview by David Levy, June 1, 1992Targets should be expressed in terms of dollar levels of monetary aggregates rather than, or in addition to, growth rates. In 1975, Congress required the Fed for the first time to specify targets a year in advance. However, the Fed has evaded the intended discipline by stating targets in terms of growth rates applied to a shifting level of actual monetary totals. This device buried past mistakes and enabled the Fed to start fresh each quarter.
Improving Monetary PolicyColumn, 1980, Newsweek, July 28, 1980; reprinted in the Congressional Record, Extensions of Remarks, July 28, 1980, p. 20026, introduced by Representative Robert Dornan of California, who gives the column as appearing in the Newsweek issue “dated July 28, 1980”, Congressional Record, July 28, 1980, p. 20026Analysis of the supply of money, and in particular of changes in the supply of money, is simple in principle but extremely complex in practice, both in our hypothetical world and in the current real world. Simple in principle, because the supply of money is whatever the monetary authorities make if, complex in practice, because the decisions of the monetary authorities depend on numerous factors.
To avoid misunderstanding, let me emphasize that by using the term “natural” rate of unemployment, I do not mean to suggest that it is immutable and unchangeable. On the contrary, many of the market characteristics that determine its level are man-made and policy-made. In the United States, for example, legal minimum wage rates ( … ) and the strength of labor unions all make the natural rate of unemployment higher than it would otherwise be.
The Role of Monetary PolicyJournal article, 1968, American Economic Review 58, no. 1 (March 1968), pp. 1–17; reprinted in the House Banking and Currency Committee’s 1968 Compendium on Monetary Policy Guidelines and Federal Reserve Structure, pp. 214–224, p. 219 of the 1968 House reprintAs an empirical matter, low-interest rates are a sign that monetary policy has been tight—in the sense that the quantity of money has grown slowly; high-interest rates are a sign that monetary policy has been easy—in the sense that the quantity of money has grown rapidly. The broadest facts of experience run in precisely the opposite direction from that which the financial community and academic economists have all generally taken for granted.
The Role of Monetary PolicyJournal article, 1968, American Economic Review 58, no. 1 (March 1968), pp. 1–17; reprinted in the House Banking and Currency Committee’s 1968 Compendium on Monetary Policy Guidelines and Federal Reserve Structure, pp. 214–224, p. 218 of the 1968 House reprintTo state this conclusion differently, there is always a temporary trade-off between inflation and unemployment; there is no permanent trade-off. ( … ) The widespread belief that there is a permanent trade-off is a sophisticated version of the confusion between “high” and “rising” that we all recognize in simpler forms. A rising rate of inflation may reduce unemployment, a high rate will not.
The Role of Monetary PolicyJournal article, 1968, American Economic Review 58, no. 1 (March 1968), pp. 1–17; reprinted in the House Banking and Currency Committee’s 1968 Compendium on Monetary Policy Guidelines and Federal Reserve Structure, pp. 214–224, p. 220 of the 1968 House reprintFor both long and short periods there is a consistent though not precise relation between the rate of growth of the quantity of money and the rate of growth of nominal income. If the quantity of money grows rapidly, so will nominal income, and conversely. The relation is much closer for long than for short periods
Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon in the sense that it is and can be produced only by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output. … A steady rate of monetary growth at a moderate level can provide a framework under which a country can have little inflation and much growth. It will not produce perfect stability; it will not produce heaven on earth; but it can make an important contribution to a stable economic society.