How Janet Yellen’s Agenda Could Transform Washington

The next Fed chair is an old-school progressive economist. Just wait until she starts sharing her passions.

FILE- This March 27, 2009, file photo, shows the Federal Reserve Building on Constitution Avenue in Washington. With an eye on the “fiscal cliff,” the Federal Reserve is expected to announce a new bond-buying plan to support the U.S. economy on Tuesday, Dec. 11, 2012. 
A2009
Michael Hirsh
See more stories about...
Michael Hirsh
Jan. 6, 2014, 6 p.m.

Every Fed­er­al Re­serve Board chair­man comes in­to of­fice with a secret agenda, a hid­den pas­sion. It’s the sort of thing you don’t hear about at the con­firm­a­tion hear­ings, and yet it is of­ten this grand pas­sion — sud­denly giv­en voice in the world’s bul­li­est eco­nom­ic pul­pit — that shapes the na­tion’s fu­ture in un­ex­pec­ted ways. Alan Green­span, the erstwhile “maes­tro” of the Fed, wanted to turn fin­ance in­to the kind of lais­sez-faire mar­ket that his ment­or Ayn Rand, the uber-liber­tari­an au­thor, had al­ways en­vi­sioned. The res­ult was the across-the-board de­reg­u­la­tion of bank­ing. When Ben Bernanke took over Green­span’s job, he ap­peared to be just an­oth­er con­ser­vat­ive eco­nom­ist in the mold of his pre­de­cessor (who had en­dorsed him). But his great pas­sion was us­ing his life’s work as a schol­ar of the Great De­pres­sion to stop an­oth­er one. Only people who really knew Bernanke were aware of how the bald­ing, mild-mannered man with the slightly quavery voice was com­mit­ted, body and soul, to en­sur­ing that the 2010s did not turn out like the 1930s. Thus, the start­ling spec­tacle of a Re­pub­lic­an-ap­poin­ted act­iv­ist chief ex­plod­ing the Fed’s bal­ance sheet by tril­lions of dol­lars to keep the eco­nomy go­ing.

What is Janet Yel­len’s secret pas­sion? By the ac­counts of her friends and col­leagues, the 67-year-old Yale-trained eco­nom­ist doesn’t have many secrets. She’s served nearly 10 years in the Fed­er­al Re­serve sys­tem, first as a gov­ernor, then as head of the San Fran­cisco Fed, and now as vice chair­wo­man. Be­fore that she ran the Coun­cil of Eco­nom­ic Ad­visers un­der Bill Clin­ton. “If you were dream­ing up a train­ing school for Fed chair­men, it would be her life story,” jokes Prin­ceton eco­nom­ist Alan Blinder, her former col­league at the Fed. “I don’t think any­body in the Fed’s his­tory has come in with such a full résumé of Fed­er­al Re­serve ex­per­i­ence.” As a res­ult, she’s prob­ably as open a book as any nom­in­ee for chief in his­tory. Yel­len is con­sidered a nonideo­logue who will re­lent­lessly fol­low the facts, wheth­er they lead her to­ward solu­tions on the left or the right. “She is truly a sci­ent­ist, in that she is an ob­serv­er,” says Jim Adams, a Uni­versity of Michigan eco­nom­ist who has known Yel­len since the 1970s. In her ac­tions on the Fed­er­al Re­serve Board and in her ag­on­iz­ingly de­lib­er­ate, Brook­lyn-ac­cen­ted testi­mony be­fore Con­gress, Yel­len has res­ol­utely toed the tra­di­tion­al­ist middle line on the Fed’s “twin” man­dates to man­age in­fla­tion and un­em­ploy­ment. And with her ready smile, pix­ie hair­cut, and di­min­ut­ive size (5 feet), she doesn’t look like much of a bomb-throw­er. (Alex Wong/Getty Im­ages)


But that is the pub­lic Janet Yel­len. Dis­cip­lined, de­term­ined, and bril­liant, Yel­len is also the product of an old pro­gress­ive tra­di­tion of act­iv­ist, pro-gov­ern­ment eco­nom­ics. Above all, ac­cord­ing to col­leagues, she takes the na­tion’s worst prob­lems, es­pe­cially un­em­ploy­ment, as a deeply per­son­al chal­lenge. Yel­len, who was con­firmed Monday night, rep­res­ents a strain of in­ter­ven­tion­ist think­ing that has not found ex­pres­sion at such a high level in Wash­ing­ton in dec­ades — at least since Ron­ald Re­agan and his Milton Fried­man-in­spired at­tempt to shrink the size of gov­ern­ment. That philo­sophy still dic­tates the agenda; even the last two Demo­crat­ic pres­id­ents, Clin­ton and Barack Obama, have ad­vanced (or bowed to) get-gov­ern­ment-out-of-the-way policies, and the GOP’s no-new-tax re­li­gion pre­vents any con­ces­sions for a broad­er budget deal.

Yel­len, un­like Green­span or a pre-2008 Bernanke, is prob­ably the last per­son you’d hear re­peat­ing one of Re­agan’s fa­vor­ite jokes: “The nine scar­i­est words in the Eng­lish lan­guage are: ‘I’m from the gov­ern­ment, and I’m here to help.’ ” Ac­cord­ing to more than a half-dozen long­time friends and col­leagues, she has two grand pas­sions that will re­quire gov­ern­ment to help in a very big way: re­du­cing chron­ic­ally high un­em­ploy­ment — which is the fo­cus of her life’s work and is prob­ably the single biggest eco­nom­ic prob­lem in Amer­ica today — and rein­ing in Wall Street’s ex­cesses. Yel­len already ap­pears to be set­tling the Fed’s etern­al de­bate about the re­l­at­ive threats of un­em­ploy­ment and in­fla­tion; she de­clared bluntly in her testi­mony that job­less­ness is the is­sue of the mo­ment. Based on her past po­s­i­tions, she is also likely to try to al­ter the dis­cus­sion in Wash­ing­ton on is­sues ran­ging from the size and power of the big banks to the need for a high­er min­im­um wage and ex­ten­ded job­less be­ne­fits. And at a time when Obama has de­clared that in­come in­equal­ity is “the de­fin­ing chal­lenge of our time,” and polls show that a ma­jor­ity of Amer­ic­ans no longer be­lieve their coun­try of­fers equal op­por­tun­ity to all, Yel­len brings a raft of well-thought-out — and de­cidedly act­iv­ist — views to these is­sues.

Ac­cord­ing to col­leagues, she takes the na­tion’s worst prob­lems, es­pe­cially un­em­ploy­ment, as a deeply per­son­al chal­lenge.

She has de­voted much of her ca­reer to show­ing why mar­kets fail so of­ten and there­fore gov­ern­ment in­ter­ven­tion is needed, says No­bel Prize-win­ning eco­nom­ist Joseph Stig­litz, her former teach­er at Yale and a long­time friend. Far more than pre­vi­ous Fed chiefs, Yel­len also em­braces the young field of be­ha­vi­or­al eco­nom­ics, which pos­its that people of­ten don’t act ra­tion­ally the way eco­nom­ic mod­els say they should. Yel­len knows that the Fed’s tra­di­tion­al powers are lim­ited now be­cause the eco­nomy may be caught in a “li­quid­ity trap,” with in­terest rates already so low that ad­di­tion­al in­jec­tions of cash by the cent­ral bank will do little or noth­ing to stim­u­late the eco­nomy. But she is con­stantly on the hunt for nov­el in­ter­ven­tion­ist solu­tions; “out of the box” is one of her fa­vor­ite phrases. “She knows that labor mar­kets don’t work per­fectly; cap­it­al mar­kets don’t work per­fectly,” Stig­litz says. He adds that Yel­len un­der­stands that mon­et­ary policy is it­self the best proof of this thes­is — be­cause it wouldn’t be needed at all if mar­kets al­ways worked cor­rectly.

Those who have known Yel­len the longest also hail her em­pathy. They say she feels the pain of the job­less on a gut level and has even scol­ded her fel­low eco­nom­ists for treat­ing the un­em­ploy­ment rate as a mere num­ber rather than a tra­gic en­cap­su­la­tion of the misery of mil­lions. “How deeply you care about the un­em­ployed comes in part from your vis­cera rather than your in­tel­lect. And with Janet Yel­len, it’s very strong,” Blinder says. “She spent a good part of her ca­reer study­ing why un­em­ploy­ment stays high. I can re­mem­ber a con­ver­sa­tion between the two of us at the Fed in the ‘90s — I was vice chair­man and she was a gov­ernor. One day, we tried hold­ing back [the Fed­er­al Open Mar­ket Com­mit­tee, the Fed’s chief de­cision-mak­ing body] from go­ing over­board on rais­ing in­terest rates. She said, ‘Maybe we saved 500,000 people their jobs.’ “

Now she gets her chance to save more. Along­side in­equal­ity, chron­ic un­em­ploy­ment is Amer­ica’s most press­ing eco­nom­ic prob­lem. The bleak back­drop to the latest pos­it­ive news, the re­duc­tion in the un­em­ploy­ment rate to 7 per­cent, is that dev­ast­at­ing num­bers of people have simply dropped out of the work­force in des­pair. And yet Wash­ing­ton poli­cy­makers re­main ideo­lo­gic­ally para­lyzed over what to do about it. By a num­ber of ac­counts, no one feels this more in­tensely than Yel­len, who un­der­stands not just the hu­man cost to in­di­vidu­al lives and fam­il­ies but also the dam­age that a de­mor­al­ized work­force can do to the eco­nomy as a whole. One of her most im­port­ant pa­pers, writ­ten with her hus­band, No­bel Prize win­ner George Aker­lof, showed that work­ers who feel un­der­paid will be less pro­duct­ive. “She does see long-term un­em­ploy­ment, massive un­em­ploy­ment, as not only an eco­nom­ic prob­lem or in terms of wasted re­sources but also as a hu­man be­ing,” says John Wil­li­ams, pres­id­ent of the San Fran­cisco Fed, who was Yel­len’s re­search chief when she ran it. “It is very de­struct­ive to fam­il­ies.”¦ This is pas­sion­ate with her. Among eco­nom­ists, you don’t of­ten see that hu­man side. With her, it’s not just an ab­strac­tion, and if you try to treat it too much as an ab­strac­tion, she’ll re­act.”

Wil­li­ams says he was “mildly chewed out” by Yel­len for ap­proach­ing the mort­gage crisis too aca­dem­ic­ally — too much like an eco­nom­ist. “We need to be work­ing our hard­est, think­ing our best.”¦ This coun­try’s in a crisis. We’re on the pre­cip­ice, and we need to really fo­cus,” he re­calls her say­ing. Yel­len, he adds, is not go­ing to be the type of Fed chief “sit­ting there wringing her hands and say­ing mon­et­ary policy can’t solve all the world’s prob­lems.”

Already she is de­scrib­ing the cent­ral bank’s job in ways that have stunned some tra­di­tion­al Fed watch­ers — and made them un­easy. Yel­len’s very first state­ment after Obama nom­in­ated her in Oc­to­ber sug­ges­ted she in­tends to ex­tend Bernanke’s re­volu­tion­ary ex­pan­sion of the Fed’s role, not ratchet it back. “While we have made pro­gress, we have fur­ther to go,” she said, adding that the Fed’s job was not just to keep the dol­lar sound but “to serve all the Amer­ic­an people … [and] en­sure that every­one has the abil­ity to work hard and build a bet­ter life.”

The state­ment, which in­dic­ated that Yel­len is fo­cused on boost­ing em­ploy­ment, “knocked me over. It was a polit­ic­al state­ment which fits per­fectly with her [aca­dem­ic] up­bring­ing,” says Dav­id Jones, a vet­er­an Fed ana­lyst and the au­thor of the forth­com­ing book Un­der­stand­ing Cent­ral Bank­ing: The New Era of Act­iv­ism. He points out the risks. “Her biggest chal­lenge now is to re­verse the Fed’s highly ac­com­mod­at­ive policy,” but that runs right up against her act­iv­ist ap­proach to un­em­ploy­ment and in­come in­equal­ity. As a res­ult, Jones is wor­ried that Yel­len will make a muddle of the job. “The trouble is, you don’t know wheth­er­she can rise to the level of that pay grade, which is the second-most-power­ful per­son in the coun­try,” he says. “She also said that the greatest qual­ity of the Fed is its abil­ity to de­bate is­sues. I said to my­self, de­bat­ing is­sues is as far re­moved from the Fed’s greatest qual­ity as I can think of. It’s the policy the Fed makes that counts.”

YEL­LEN’S AGENDA

The daugh­ter of a Brook­lyn phys­i­cian and a home­maker, Yel­len grew up fairly well-off in the hal­cy­on ‘50s. But she vividly re­mem­bers listen­ing around the kit­chen table as her fath­er told tales of the De­pres­sion and her moth­er read about mar­kets and eco­nom­ics from the busi­ness sec­tion of the news­pa­per. A math geek and the va­le­dictori­an of her high school class, Yel­len ad­ored the idea that people could ac­tu­ally fig­ure out how a whole eco­nomy works and maybe even res­cue it, as John Maynard Keynes pro­posed. She was drawn to Yale be­cause her ment­or, the fam­ous lib­er­al eco­nom­ist James To­bin, a Keynes aco­lyte, talked in pas­sion­ate terms about pre­vent­ing the ter­rible job­less­ness of the De­pres­sion, and the fin­an­cial reck­less­ness that led to it, from ever hap­pen­ing again.

Today, Yel­len sees the eco­nomy as a great ail­ing beast, and she wants to mas­sage it back to life.

So even though it’s well out of the Fed’s pur­view, Yel­len has for years done aca­dem­ic work sup­port­ing a high­er min­im­um wage and deal­ing with in­come in­equal­ity. Pre­vi­ous Fed chair­men have ten­ded to shrink in hor­ror from such le­gis­lat­ive is­sues, but as far back as 2006, while pres­id­ent of the San Fran­cisco Fed, she warned that rising in­equal­ity could “un­der­mine Amer­ic­an demo­cracy” and that dra­mat­ic im­prove­ments in edu­ca­tion were “im­per­at­ive,” along with a strength­en­ing of the so­cial safety net. It would be sur­pris­ing if she did not try to con­vince Con­gress of the same in speeches and her semi­an­nu­al testi­mony.

And then there is the rest of the globe. Stiglitz says that in such a power­ful po­s­i­tion — the most power­ful eco­nom­ic post in the world, and the second-most-power­ful job in Wash­ing­ton — Yel­len could pro­foundly change the de­bate around the world. Des­pite grow­ing con­cern about in­equal­ity, cent­ral bankers in many coun­tries (es­pe­cially at the European Cent­ral Bank) tend to sup­port “wage flex­ib­il­ity,” which is a fancy term for per­mit­ting eco­nom­ic policies that drive wages down and thus cre­ate more in­equal­ity to at­tract busi­nesses, says Stiglitz, who con­sults for many of those na­tions. Yel­len, as the world’s most in­flu­en­tial cent­ral banker, is likely to try to al­ter that con­ven­tion­al wis­dom and oth­er re­flex­ively neo­lib­er­al (read: Re­agan­ite) views.

Today, Yel­len sees the eco­nomy as a great ail­ing beast, and she wants to mas­sage it back to life. She knows that Amer­ica is in danger of be­com­ing like Ja­pan, with chron­ic­ally slow growth that leaves real in­terest rates low for a long time and tends to render the Fed chair­man’s tra­di­tion­al ar­ray of mon­et­ary tools in­ef­fect­ive. Even so, “there is a lot of in­tan­gible in­flu­ence that a Fed chair­man brings to the table,” says Jared Bern­stein, Vice Pres­id­ent Joe Biden’s former chief eco­nom­ist. “When it comes to just the ba­sic prob­lem of struc­tur­ally de­fi­cient de­mand and per­sist­ent out­put gaps [the dif­fer­ence between what the eco­nomy could be pro­du­cing and what it is], and of long-term un­em­ploy­ment, she seems to really get not only how im­port­ant it is to at­tack those prob­lems for the be­ne­fit of people who are hurt by them, but also for the mac­roe­conomy. She re­cog­nizes that the longer the cyc­lic­al prob­lems go on, the more they morph in­to struc­tur­al prob­lems” — in oth­er words, the more they be­come a per­man­ent con­di­tion.

Oth­er sup­port­ers say it is the sheer breadth of Yel­len’s eco­nom­ic think­ing that is most im­press­ive — and use­ful. “I do think she does rep­res­ent something of a new breed of poli­cy­makers in Wash­ing­ton,” says John E. Kwoka, an eco­nom­ist at North­east­ern who gradu­ated with Yel­len from Brown in 1967 and has fol­lowed her rise to the top with frank ad­mir­a­tion. “She has wider know­ledge of mod­ern eco­nom­ics than cer­tainly Alan Green­span but prob­ably Ben Bernanke, too.”¦ And she’s not part of the Wash­ing­ton-New York ax­is, which for some time has been con­trolling Fed and Treas­ury policy. That’s why I think she’s the per­fect match for the is­sues of the day.”

Yel­len will also be in­her­it­ing a job that has nev­er been as im­port­ant as it is right now. “Bernanke has es­tab­lished mon­et­ary policy as the most power­ful weapon the gov­ern­ment can use in deal­ing with a crisis,” over­turn­ing the post-Great De­pres­sion Keyne­sian fo­cus on fisc­al spend­ing, Jones says. The ques­tion now is wheth­er Yel­len will try to out-Bernanke even Bernanke. Whatever Yel­len’s am­bi­tions for shift­ing the de­bate in Wash­ing­ton — on min­im­um wage and in­come in­equal­ity, or on more fisc­al stim­u­lus or job pro­grams — at the be­gin­ning of her term, she will be saddled with one big, de­cis­ive ques­tion: when to be­gin to “taper” or un­wind Bernanke’s latest ag­gress­ive in­ter­ven­tion in the mar­ket, his “quant­it­at­ive eas­ing” pro­gram of buy­ing $85 bil­lion a month in bonds to keep in­terest rates down. As a Fed vet­er­an, she may also be leery of jump­ing too quickly in­to the fisc­al de­bate, fear­ing a back­lash from a Con­gress that keeps threat­en­ing to rein in the Fed’s tra­di­tion­al powers. Blinder and oth­ers say they ex­pect Yel­len to be cau­tious at first, in part be­cause a bloc of dol­lar hawks such as Sen. Marco Ru­bio, R-Fla., have come out against her nom­in­a­tion, say­ing she and Bernanke have laid the ground­work for massive in­fla­tion. Jef­frey Frankel of the Har­vard Kennedy School, who served un­der Yel­len on Clin­ton’s Coun­cil of Eco­nom­ic Ad­visers, says he thinks she might sur­prise every­one at first by tight­en­ing mon­et­ary policy soon­er rather than later, “partly maybe to es­tab­lish her repu­ta­tion and make it clear that she’s not just a soft-money per­son.”

Sen­at­ors who listened to her con­firm­a­tion testi­mony also see a lot of con­tinu­ity with Bernanke, with whom Yel­len has worked smoothly as vice chair­wo­man for the past three years. “Not to sit down at a spread­sheet and com­pare the two, but I think they’re pretty sim­il­ar in their philo­sophies,” says Sen. Jon Test­er, D-Mont. “I mean, they could vary in oth­er things that I’m not aware of, but I think that she’s go­ing to be a pretty steady hand at the Fed, be­cause that’s what Bernanke has been.” Bernanke him­self is said to be de­lighted with the choice, in large part be­cause she will de­liv­er the smoothest pos­sible trans­ition. As Mark Gertler of New York Uni­versity, Bernanke’s long­time coau­thor and in­tim­ate friend, puts it, “She was his biggest ad­voc­ate at the board, no ques­tion about it.”¦ I re­mem­ber meet­ing with her very early in the crisis, and her re­mark­ing on how well he was do­ing. She wants it to look seam­less. No ques­tion about that. I think he prob­ably feels good about leav­ing now.”


Like Bernanke, of course, Yel­len’s biggest prob­lem will be Wash­ing­ton’s polit­ic­al dys­func­tion, es­pe­cially the in­ab­il­ity of Con­gress and the pres­id­ent to agree on a long-term budget, on how pro­gress­ive the tax code should be, or on any ad­di­tion­al fisc­al stim­u­lus. “What the Fed has had to do is to com­pensate for the ab­sence of fisc­al policy. That’s not a healthy situ­ation,” Gertler says. “If it were not for the crazi­ness go­ing on in Con­gress, the Fed would prob­ably be un­wind­ing [its quant­it­at­ive-eas­ing policies] right now. It’s go­ing to be tough — dif­fer­ent from what Bernanke had to deal with. He was fight­ing a light­ning strike, with the crisis. This is more like a steady con­sist­ent battle she’s go­ing to have to fight.” But while she isn’t likely to come out swinging against the con­gres­sion­al in­transigents, many of her friends and as­so­ci­ates say it would be in char­ac­ter for her to use her powers of per­sua­sion to quietly sway the lar­ger de­bate. For her en­tire ca­reer, they say, she has been fear­less about stand­ing up for the eco­nom­ic views she be­lieves are right. Michigan’s Adams tells of get­ting to know her when he was a Ph.D. stu­dent at Har­vard and Yel­len was an un­ten­ured as­sist­ant pro­fess­or there. Adams had just been re­buffed by his thes­is ad­viser, an emer­it­us chair­man of the eco­nom­ics de­part­ment. When Adams told Yel­len that his ad­viser had in­struc­ted him to re­think his eco­nom­ic ar­gu­ment, she replied calmly, “Hmm, it seems to me we could do something.” To­geth­er, Yel­len and Adams col­lab­or­ated on an art­icle ad­van­cing the same ideas; it be­came one of the most heav­ily cited in the field. “Janet was right. My thes­is ment­or was wrong. And what came out of it was much more than I had seen my­self. Janet saw how to make it in­to something much bet­ter.” Just as im­port­ant, she was tak­ing on a power­ful ten­ured pro­fess­or who could have eas­ily voted her out of a job at a fac­ulty meet­ing. “That takes some cour­age,” Adams says. It’s the kind of cour­age she will need to take on — in testi­mony, speeches, and meet­ings with le­gis­lat­ors and reg­u­lat­ors — an en­tire free-mar­ket Zeit­geist, the Re­aganom­ic views that still dom­in­ate Wash­ing­ton. 

WALL STREET, WATCH OUT

Yel­len is also said to be push­ing for a far more ag­gress­ive ap­proach to Wall Street — which is iron­ic, con­sid­er­ing that Wall Street has cheered her nom­in­a­tion. Of­fi­cials in­side the Fed and out who have spoken to her say one big change in the off­ing is that Yel­len plans to take charge of the fin­an­cial-reg­u­lat­ory agenda her­self, while Bernanke largely left the task to one of his gov­ernors, Daniel Tarullo. (Des­pite a shared per­spect­ive — that bank­ing needs to be more heav­ily reg­u­lated with tough cap­it­al and li­quid­ity ra­tios and re­stric­tions on risky trad­ing and lend­ing — Yel­len and Tarullo have battled over turf. (See “High Noon for Dan Tarullo,”) Says one eco­nom­ist who knows her well: “The feel­ing I think she has is that Dan was giv­en li­cense [by Bernanke] and he treaded too lightly. He was not as force­ful as he needed to be. She feels that the chair­man has much more im­pact.”

The biggest prob­lem Yel­len will face in her term is that she has a steep hill to climb to bring gov­ern­ment back in­to the dis­cus­sion in an en­lightened way — es­pe­cially on the heels of the troubled rol­lout of Obama­care.

Her view is that fin­an­cial mar­kets have and will con­tin­ue to fail dis­astrously un­less they are fur­ther con­strained, sources close to her say. Already it ap­pears that Yel­len is pre­pared to tussle with Treas­ury Sec­ret­ary Jac­ob Lew, who des­pite show­ing more en­thu­si­asm for bank reg­u­la­tion than his pre­de­cessor, Timothy Geithner, sug­ges­ted re­cently that the too-big-to-fail prob­lem has been largely solved. In her own pub­lic re­marks, Yel­len echoes Tarullo’s push for high­er cap­it­al stand­ards for “sys­tem­ic­ally im­port­ant” banks, to pre­vent them from over-lever­aging and run­ning out of cash. And she also re­peats his con­cerns about re­strict­ing the use of whole­sale short-term fund­ing mar­kets, which seized up in the 2008 crisis and doomed Leh­man Broth­ers. Tarullo has been more ag­gress­ive than Lew and the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion in pro­pos­ing what he’s called a “set of com­ple­ment­ary policy meas­ures” to go bey­ond the Dodd-Frank law. Among them: lim­it­ing the ex­pan­sion of big banks by re­strict­ing the fund­ing they get from sources oth­er than tra­di­tion­al fed­er­ally in­sured de­pos­its.

Yel­len, in a ma­jor speech in Shang­hai last June, went bey­ond what Bernanke has said by ex­pli­citly en­dors­ing some of Tarullo’s ef­forts. “I’m not con­vinced that the ex­ist­ing [sys­tem­ic­ally im­port­ant fin­an­cial in­sti­tu­tions] reg­u­lat­ory work plan, which moves in the right dir­ec­tion, goes far enough,” she said. She also spoke of do­ing much more, as Tarullo has, to con­strain the “shad­ow bank­ing” sec­tor that caused so much trouble in 2008, in­clud­ing broker-deal­ers and money-mar­ket funds. Yel­len said “a ma­jor source of un­ad­dressed risk” were the hun­dreds of bil­lions of dol­lars of short-term se­cur­it­ies fin­an­cing used by these firms, adding, “Reg­u­lat­ory re­form mostly passed over these trans­ac­tions.”

More than that, as eco­nom­ist Kwoka sug­gests, Yel­len is a rara avis in Wash­ing­ton these days — someone who has spent her life and ca­reer ut­terly de­tached from Wall Street. “Janet rep­res­ents a re­turn to the de­s­anc­ti­fic­a­tion of fin­ance,” says an eco­nom­ist who knows her views well but would speak about them only on con­di­tion of an­onym­ity. “I think that’s a huge so­ci­olo­gic­al change. She’s not cap­tured by Wall Street the way so many have been.”¦ I think Janet will be more act­ive. When it comes to fin­an­cial in­nov­a­tion, it used to be, ‘You can do it un­less we say no.’ Now I think the policy will be, ‘You can’t do it un­less we au­thor­ize it.’ ” Be­cause the Fed has the power to reg­u­late and write rules for the gi­ant bank hold­ing com­pan­ies, it has enorm­ous dis­cre­tion in this area and does not need to wait for Con­gress to act.

Still, even on Wall Street, it’s hard to find people who will say neg­at­ive things about Yel­len, who was re­cently judged by The Wall Street Journ­al to be the most ac­cur­ate fore­caster on the Fed­er­al Re­serve Board. It’s easi­er, in fact, to track down the neg­at­ive as­sess­ments that Yel­len oc­ca­sion­ally makes of her­self. While she did not al­ways act on reg­u­la­tion when needed — claim­ing that as head of the San Fran­cisco Fed she had to wait on Wash­ing­ton’s guid­ance — the re­cord shows she ap­peared to be some­what ahead of Bernanke in ap­pre­ci­at­ing the dangers of the se­cur­it­iz­a­tion-led hous­ing bubble. At the Fed’s June 2007 meet­ing, she warned that the fail­ing hous­ing sec­tor was the “600-pound gor­illa in the room.” That was only a month after Bernanke, in con­gres­sion­al testi­mony, said he saw only a “lim­ited im­pact” from subprime mort­gages on “the broad­er hous­ing mar­ket.” Yet Yel­len also offered up a per­son­al mea culpa after the fin­an­cial col­lapse, telling the Fin­an­cial Crisis In­quiry Com­mis­sion in 2010 she “did not see and did not ap­pre­ci­ate what the risks were with se­cur­it­iz­a­tion, the cred­it-rat­ings agen­cies, the shad­ow bank­ing sys­tem, the [struc­tured in­vest­ment vehicles] — I didn’t see any of that com­ing un­til it happened.”

A few eco­nom­ists won­der wheth­er Yel­len may end up be­ing more middle-of-the-road than her aca­dem­ic re­cord in­dic­ates. As a res­ol­ute free-trade ad­voc­ate, she’s prob­ably far more cent­rist than, say, Jared Bern­stein, and she’s not nearly as in­ter­ven­tion­ist as Joseph Stiglitz, who dur­ing the 1990s fought a los­ing battle against open­ing up cap­it­al flows around the world. Yel­len is prob­ably even less lib­er­al than her hus­band, who shared a No­bel Prize with Stiglitz, and her late teach­er, James To­bin, the No­bel Prize win­ner from Yale who ar­gued that fin­an­cial mar­kets are more in­her­ently prone to fail­ure than or­din­ary mar­kets in goods and ser­vices. In a 2010 in­ter­view, Aker­lof said he “was al­ways apo­plect­ic” about the kind of rap­id de­reg­u­la­tion ad­voc­ated by Har­vard eco­nom­ist Lawrence Sum­mers, who al­most cer­tainly would have been nom­in­ated in Yel­len’s place had he not backed out. As Clin­ton’s CEA chair­wo­man, by con­trast, Yel­len did not de­mur from some de­reg­u­lat­ory moves such as Glass-Steagall re­peal in 1999.

Non­ethe­less, by her own ac­count, Yel­len rep­res­ents the gov­ern­ment-act­iv­ist “Yale School” of eco­nom­ics, which be­lieves that there are “clear an­swers to key ques­tions di­vid­ing mac­roe­conom­ists, along with policy pre­scrip­tions,” as she put it in a 1999 speech at Yale. “Will cap­it­al­ist eco­nom­ies op­er­ate at full em­ploy­ment in the ab­sence of routine in­ter­ven­tion? Cer­tainly not. Are de­vi­ations from full em­ploy­ment a so­cial prob­lem? Ob­vi­ously.” She is, more than pre­vi­ous Fed chiefs, an old-style “hy­draul­ic Keyne­sian” who be­lieves she can act as a con­trol en­gin­eer over the eco­nomy, print­ing money to drive down un­em­ploy­ment. The two pre­vi­ous chair­men go­ing back to the late 1980s have ten­ded to­ward the Chica­go liber­tari­an side of eco­nom­ics, ex­alt­ing the wis­dom of mar­kets.

The biggest prob­lem Yel­len will face in her term is that she has a steep hill to climb to bring gov­ern­ment back in­to the dis­cus­sion in an en­lightened way — es­pe­cially on the heels of the troubled rol­lout of Obama­care. And if Amer­ica is en­ter­ing “sec­u­lar stag­na­tion” where mon­et­ary policy is no longer very ef­fect­ive be­cause in­terest rates are already so low, then her in­flu­ence may be far more lim­ited than, say, Green­span’s was in the hey­day of “ir­ra­tion­al ex­uber­ance.” But, even­tu­ally, Gertler says, “she’s go­ing to carve her own niche,” per­haps by ex­pand­ing the Fed’s man­date to tar­get high­er GDP growth and fur­ther re­strain­ing Wall Street.

The past sev­er­al Fed chiefs have all seemed oddly suited to their mo­ments. The ci­gar-chomp­ing Paul Vol­ck­er was just the man to tame run­away in­fla­tion in the ‘70s and ‘80s. Green­span, des­pite his er­rors on de­reg­u­la­tion, was the right Fed chair­man to handle the era of ir­ra­tion­al ex­uber­ance and sud­den pro­ductiv­ity growth in the 1990s (one of his less­er-sung tri­umphs, in fact, was to hold off rais­ing rates at a time when many eco­nom­ists, in­clud­ing Yel­len, were ur­ging him to worry about in­fla­tion — and he prob­ably saved mil­lions of jobs that way). “Heli­copter Ben” Bernanke, of course, was just the sa­vior we needed to pre­vent an­oth­er Great De­pres­sion. 

In the end, all of these Fed chair­men pro­foundly changed the course of the U.S. eco­nomy (and Vol­ck­er, though in re­tire­ment, is still do­ing so with the just-ap­proved “Vol­ck­er Rule” that will bar banks from the ris­ki­est trad­ing). There is every reas­on to think Janet Yel­len will have just as much im­pact, in her own spe­cial way.

YELLEN'S AGENDA

The daugh­ter of a Brook­lyn phys­i­cian and a home­maker, Yel­len grew up fairly well-off in the hal­cy­on ‘50s. But she vividly re­mem­bers listen­ing around the kit­chen table as her fath­er told tales of the De­pres­sion and her moth­er read about mar­kets and eco­nom­ics from the busi­ness sec­tion of the news­pa­per. A math geek and the va­le­dictori­an of her high school class, Yel­len ad­ored the idea that people could ac­tu­ally fig­ure out how a whole eco­nomy works and maybe even res­cue it, as John Maynard Keynes pro­posed. She was drawn to Yale be­cause her ment­or, the fam­ous lib­er­al eco­nom­ist James To­bin, a Keynes aco­lyte, talked in pas­sion­ate terms about pre­vent­ing the ter­rible job­less­ness of the De­pres­sion, and the fin­an­cial reck­less­ness that led to it, from ever hap­pen­ing again.

Today, Yel­len sees the eco­nomy as a great ail­ing beast, and she wants to mas­sage it back to life.

So even though it’s well out of the Fed’s pur­view, Yel­len has for years done aca­dem­ic work sup­port­ing a high­er min­im­um wage and deal­ing with in­come in­equal­ity. Pre­vi­ous Fed chair­men have ten­ded to shrink in hor­ror from such le­gis­lat­ive is­sues, but as far back as 2006, while pres­id­ent of the San Fran­cisco Fed, she warned that rising in­equal­ity could “un­der­mine Amer­ic­an demo­cracy” and that dra­mat­ic im­prove­ments in edu­ca­tion were “im­per­at­ive,” along with a strength­en­ing of the so­cial safety net. It would be sur­pris­ing if she did not try to con­vince Con­gress of the same in speeches and her semi­an­nu­al testi­mony.

And then there is the rest of the globe. Stiglitz says that in such a power­ful po­s­i­tion — the most power­ful eco­nom­ic post in the world, and the second-most-power­ful job in Wash­ing­ton — Yel­len could pro­foundly change the de­bate around the world. Des­pite grow­ing con­cern about in­equal­ity, cent­ral bankers in many coun­tries (es­pe­cially at the European Cent­ral Bank) tend to sup­port “wage flex­ib­il­ity,” which is a fancy term for per­mit­ting eco­nom­ic policies that drive wages down and thus cre­ate more in­equal­ity to at­tract busi­nesses, says Stiglitz, who con­sults for many of those na­tions. Yel­len, as the world’s most in­flu­en­tial cent­ral banker, is likely to try to al­ter that con­ven­tion­al wis­dom and oth­er re­flex­ively neo­lib­er­al (read: Re­agan­ite) views.

Today, Yel­len sees the eco­nomy as a great ail­ing beast, and she wants to mas­sage it back to life. She knows that Amer­ica is in danger of be­com­ing like Ja­pan, with chron­ic­ally slow growth that leaves real in­terest rates low for a long time and tends to render the Fed chair­man’s tra­di­tion­al ar­ray of mon­et­ary tools in­ef­fect­ive. Even so, “there is a lot of in­tan­gible in­flu­ence that a Fed chair­man brings to the table,” says Jared Bern­stein, Vice Pres­id­ent Joe Biden’s former chief eco­nom­ist. “When it comes to just the ba­sic prob­lem of struc­tur­ally de­fi­cient de­mand and per­sist­ent out­put gaps [the dif­fer­ence between what the eco­nomy could be pro­du­cing and what it is], and of long-term un­em­ploy­ment, she seems to really get not only how im­port­ant it is to at­tack those prob­lems for the be­ne­fit of people who are hurt by them, but also for the mac­roe­conomy. She re­cog­nizes that the longer the cyc­lic­al prob­lems go on, the more they morph in­to struc­tur­al prob­lems” — in oth­er words, the more they be­come a per­man­ent con­di­tion.

Oth­er sup­port­ers say it is the sheer breadth of Yel­len’s eco­nom­ic think­ing that is most im­press­ive — and use­ful. “I do think she does rep­res­ent something of a new breed of poli­cy­makers in Wash­ing­ton,” says John E. Kwoka, an eco­nom­ist at North­east­ern who gradu­ated with Yel­len from Brown in 1967 and has fol­lowed her rise to the top with frank ad­mir­a­tion. “She has wider know­ledge of mod­ern eco­nom­ics than cer­tainly Alan Green­span but prob­ably Ben Bernanke, too.”¦ And she’s not part of the Wash­ing­ton-New York ax­is, which for some time has been con­trolling Fed and Treas­ury policy. That’s why I think she’s the per­fect match for the is­sues of the day.”

Yel­len will also be in­her­it­ing a job that has nev­er been as im­port­ant as it is right now. “Bernanke has es­tab­lished mon­et­ary policy as the most power­ful weapon the gov­ern­ment can use in deal­ing with a crisis,” over­turn­ing the post-Great De­pres­sion Keyne­sian fo­cus on fisc­al spend­ing, Jones says. The ques­tion now is wheth­er Yel­len will try to out-Bernanke even Bernanke. Whatever Yel­len’s am­bi­tions for shift­ing the de­bate in Wash­ing­ton — on min­im­um wage and in­come in­equal­ity, or on more fisc­al stim­u­lus or job pro­grams — at the be­gin­ning of her term, she will be saddled with one big, de­cis­ive ques­tion: when to be­gin to “taper” or un­wind Bernanke’s latest ag­gress­ive in­ter­ven­tion in the mar­ket, his “quant­it­at­ive eas­ing” pro­gram of buy­ing $85 bil­lion a month in bonds to keep in­terest rates down. As a Fed vet­er­an, she may also be leery of jump­ing too quickly in­to the fisc­al de­bate, fear­ing a back­lash from a Con­gress that keeps threat­en­ing to rein in the Fed’s tra­di­tion­al powers. Blinder and oth­ers say they ex­pect Yel­len to be cau­tious at first, in part be­cause a bloc of dol­lar hawks such as Sen. Marco Ru­bio, R-Fla., have come out against her nom­in­a­tion, say­ing she and Bernanke have laid the ground­work for massive in­fla­tion. Jef­frey Frankel of the Har­vard Kennedy School, who served un­der Yel­len on Clin­ton’s Coun­cil of Eco­nom­ic Ad­visers, says he thinks she might sur­prise every­one at first by tight­en­ing mon­et­ary policy soon­er rather than later, “partly maybe to es­tab­lish her repu­ta­tion and make it clear that she’s not just a soft-money per­son.”

Sen­at­ors who listened to her con­firm­a­tion testi­mony also see a lot of con­tinu­ity with Bernanke, with whom Yel­len has worked smoothly as vice chair­wo­man for the past three years. “Not to sit down at a spread­sheet and com­pare the two, but I think they’re pretty sim­il­ar in their philo­sophies,” says Sen. Jon Test­er, D-Mont. “I mean, they could vary in oth­er things that I’m not aware of, but I think that she’s go­ing to be a pretty steady hand at the Fed, be­cause that’s what Bernanke has been.” Bernanke him­self is said to be de­lighted with the choice, in large part be­cause she will de­liv­er the smoothest pos­sible trans­ition. As Mark Gertler of New York Uni­versity, Bernanke’s long­time coau­thor and in­tim­ate friend, puts it, “She was his biggest ad­voc­ate at the board, no ques­tion about it.”¦ I re­mem­ber meet­ing with her very early in the crisis, and her re­mark­ing on how well he was do­ing. She wants it to look seam­less. No ques­tion about that. I think he prob­ably feels good about leav­ing now.”


Like Bernanke, of course, Yel­len’s biggest prob­lem will be Wash­ing­ton’s polit­ic­al dys­func­tion, es­pe­cially the in­ab­il­ity of Con­gress and the pres­id­ent to agree on a long-term budget, on how pro­gress­ive the tax code should be, or on any ad­di­tion­al fisc­al stim­u­lus. “What the Fed has had to do is to com­pensate for the ab­sence of fisc­al policy. That’s not a healthy situ­ation,” Gertler says. “If it were not for the crazi­ness go­ing on in Con­gress, the Fed would prob­ably be un­wind­ing [its quant­it­at­ive-eas­ing policies] right now. It’s go­ing to be tough — dif­fer­ent from what Bernanke had to deal with. He was fight­ing a light­ning strike, with the crisis. This is more like a steady con­sist­ent battle she’s go­ing to have to fight.” But while she isn’t likely to come out swinging against the con­gres­sion­al in­transigents, many of her friends and as­so­ci­ates say it would be in char­ac­ter for her to use her powers of per­sua­sion to quietly sway the lar­ger de­bate. For her en­tire ca­reer, they say, she has been fear­less about stand­ing up for the eco­nom­ic views she be­lieves are right. Michigan’s Adams tells of get­ting to know her when he was a Ph.D. stu­dent at Har­vard and Yel­len was an un­ten­ured as­sist­ant pro­fess­or there. Adams had just been re­buffed by his thes­is ad­viser, an emer­it­us chair­man of the eco­nom­ics de­part­ment. When Adams told Yel­len that his ad­viser had in­struc­ted him to re­think his eco­nom­ic ar­gu­ment, she replied calmly, “Hmm, it seems to me we could do something.” To­geth­er, Yel­len and Adams col­lab­or­ated on an art­icle ad­van­cing the same ideas; it be­came one of the most heav­ily cited in the field. “Janet was right. My thes­is ment­or was wrong. And what came out of it was much more than I had seen my­self. Janet saw how to make it in­to something much bet­ter.” Just as im­port­ant, she was tak­ing on a power­ful ten­ured pro­fess­or who could have eas­ily voted her out of a job at a fac­ulty meet­ing. “That takes some cour­age,” Adams says. It’s the kind of cour­age she will need to take on — in testi­mony, speeches, and meet­ings with le­gis­lat­ors and reg­u­lat­ors — an en­tire free-mar­ket Zeit­geist, the Re­aganom­ic views that still dom­in­ate Wash­ing­ton. 

WALL STREET, WATCH OUT

Yel­len is also said to be push­ing for a far more ag­gress­ive ap­proach to Wall Street — which is iron­ic, con­sid­er­ing that Wall Street has cheered her nom­in­a­tion. Of­fi­cials in­side the Fed and out who have spoken to her say one big change in the off­ing is that Yel­len plans to take charge of the fin­an­cial-reg­u­lat­ory agenda her­self, while Bernanke largely left the task to one of his gov­ernors, Daniel Tarullo. (Des­pite a shared per­spect­ive — that bank­ing needs to be more heav­ily reg­u­lated with tough cap­it­al and li­quid­ity ra­tios and re­stric­tions on risky trad­ing and lend­ing — Yel­len and Tarullo have battled over turf. (See “High Noon for Dan Tarullo,”) Says one eco­nom­ist who knows her well: “The feel­ing I think she has is that Dan was giv­en li­cense [by Bernanke] and he treaded too lightly. He was not as force­ful as he needed to be. She feels that the chair­man has much more im­pact.”

The biggest prob­lem Yel­len will face in her term is that she has a steep hill to climb to bring gov­ern­ment back in­to the dis­cus­sion in an en­lightened way — es­pe­cially on the heels of the troubled rol­lout of Obama­care.

Her view is that fin­an­cial mar­kets have and will con­tin­ue to fail dis­astrously un­less they are fur­ther con­strained, sources close to her say. Already it ap­pears that Yel­len is pre­pared to tussle with Treas­ury Sec­ret­ary Jac­ob Lew, who des­pite show­ing more en­thu­si­asm for bank reg­u­la­tion than his pre­de­cessor, Timothy Geithner, sug­ges­ted re­cently that the too-big-to-fail prob­lem has been largely solved. In her own pub­lic re­marks, Yel­len echoes Tarullo’s push for high­er cap­it­al stand­ards for “sys­tem­ic­ally im­port­ant” banks, to pre­vent them from over-lever­aging and run­ning out of cash. And she also re­peats his con­cerns about re­strict­ing the use of whole­sale short-term fund­ing mar­kets, which seized up in the 2008 crisis and doomed Leh­man Broth­ers. Tarullo has been more ag­gress­ive than Lew and the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion in pro­pos­ing what he’s called a “set of com­ple­ment­ary policy meas­ures” to go bey­ond the Dodd-Frank law. Among them: lim­it­ing the ex­pan­sion of big banks by re­strict­ing the fund­ing they get from sources oth­er than tra­di­tion­al fed­er­ally in­sured de­pos­its.

Yel­len, in a ma­jor speech in Shang­hai last June, went bey­ond what Bernanke has said by ex­pli­citly en­dors­ing some of Tarullo’s ef­forts. “I’m not con­vinced that the ex­ist­ing [sys­tem­ic­ally im­port­ant fin­an­cial in­sti­tu­tions] reg­u­lat­ory work plan, which moves in the right dir­ec­tion, goes far enough,” she said. She also spoke of do­ing much more, as Tarullo has, to con­strain the “shad­ow bank­ing” sec­tor that caused so much trouble in 2008, in­clud­ing broker-deal­ers and money-mar­ket funds. Yel­len said “a ma­jor source of un­ad­dressed risk” were the hun­dreds of bil­lions of dol­lars of short-term se­cur­it­ies fin­an­cing used by these firms, adding, “Reg­u­lat­ory re­form mostly passed over these trans­ac­tions.”

More than that, as eco­nom­ist Kwoka sug­gests, Yel­len is a rara avis in Wash­ing­ton these days — someone who has spent her life and ca­reer ut­terly de­tached from Wall Street. “Janet rep­res­ents a re­turn to the de­s­anc­ti­fic­a­tion of fin­ance,” says an eco­nom­ist who knows her views well but would speak about them only on con­di­tion of an­onym­ity. “I think that’s a huge so­ci­olo­gic­al change. She’s not cap­tured by Wall Street the way so many have been.”¦ I think Janet will be more act­ive. When it comes to fin­an­cial in­nov­a­tion, it used to be, ‘You can do it un­less we say no.’ Now I think the policy will be, ‘You can’t do it un­less we au­thor­ize it.’ ” Be­cause the Fed has the power to reg­u­late and write rules for the gi­ant bank hold­ing com­pan­ies, it has enorm­ous dis­cre­tion in this area and does not need to wait for Con­gress to act.

Still, even on Wall Street, it’s hard to find people who will say neg­at­ive things about Yel­len, who was re­cently judged by The Wall Street Journ­al to be the most ac­cur­ate fore­caster on the Fed­er­al Re­serve Board. It’s easi­er, in fact, to track down the neg­at­ive as­sess­ments that Yel­len oc­ca­sion­ally makes of her­self. While she did not al­ways act on reg­u­la­tion when needed — claim­ing that as head of the San Fran­cisco Fed she had to wait on Wash­ing­ton’s guid­ance — the re­cord shows she ap­peared to be some­what ahead of Bernanke in ap­pre­ci­at­ing the dangers of the se­cur­it­iz­a­tion-led hous­ing bubble. At the Fed’s June 2007 meet­ing, she warned that the fail­ing hous­ing sec­tor was the “600-pound gor­illa in the room.” That was only a month after Bernanke, in con­gres­sion­al testi­mony, said he saw only a “lim­ited im­pact” from subprime mort­gages on “the broad­er hous­ing mar­ket.” Yet Yel­len also offered up a per­son­al mea culpa after the fin­an­cial col­lapse, telling the Fin­an­cial Crisis In­quiry Com­mis­sion in 2010 she “did not see and did not ap­pre­ci­ate what the risks were with se­cur­it­iz­a­tion, the cred­it-rat­ings agen­cies, the shad­ow bank­ing sys­tem, the [struc­tured in­vest­ment vehicles] — I didn’t see any of that com­ing un­til it happened.”

A few eco­nom­ists won­der wheth­er Yel­len may end up be­ing more middle-of-the-road than her aca­dem­ic re­cord in­dic­ates. As a res­ol­ute free-trade ad­voc­ate, she’s prob­ably far more cent­rist than, say, Jared Bern­stein, and she’s not nearly as in­ter­ven­tion­ist as Joseph Stiglitz, who dur­ing the 1990s fought a los­ing battle against open­ing up cap­it­al flows around the world. Yel­len is prob­ably even less lib­er­al than her hus­band, who shared a No­bel Prize with Stiglitz, and her late teach­er, James To­bin, the No­bel Prize win­ner from Yale who ar­gued that fin­an­cial mar­kets are more in­her­ently prone to fail­ure than or­din­ary mar­kets in goods and ser­vices. In a 2010 in­ter­view, Aker­lof said he “was al­ways apo­plect­ic” about the kind of rap­id de­reg­u­la­tion ad­voc­ated by Har­vard eco­nom­ist Lawrence Sum­mers, who al­most cer­tainly would have been nom­in­ated in Yel­len’s place had he not backed out. As Clin­ton’s CEA chair­wo­man, by con­trast, Yel­len did not de­mur from some de­reg­u­lat­ory moves such as Glass-Steagall re­peal in 1999.

Non­ethe­less, by her own ac­count, Yel­len rep­res­ents the gov­ern­ment-act­iv­ist “Yale School” of eco­nom­ics, which be­lieves that there are “clear an­swers to key ques­tions di­vid­ing mac­roe­conom­ists, along with policy pre­scrip­tions,” as she put it in a 1999 speech at Yale. “Will cap­it­al­ist eco­nom­ies op­er­ate at full em­ploy­ment in the ab­sence of routine in­ter­ven­tion? Cer­tainly not. Are de­vi­ations from full em­ploy­ment a so­cial prob­lem? Ob­vi­ously.” She is, more than pre­vi­ous Fed chiefs, an old-style “hy­draul­ic Keyne­sian” who be­lieves she can act as a con­trol en­gin­eer over the eco­nomy, print­ing money to drive down un­em­ploy­ment. The two pre­vi­ous chair­men go­ing back to the late 1980s have ten­ded to­ward the Chica­go liber­tari­an side of eco­nom­ics, ex­alt­ing the wis­dom of mar­kets.

The biggest prob­lem Yel­len will face in her term is that she has a steep hill to climb to bring gov­ern­ment back in­to the dis­cus­sion in an en­lightened way — es­pe­cially on the heels of the troubled rol­lout of Obama­care. And if Amer­ica is en­ter­ing “sec­u­lar stag­na­tion” where mon­et­ary policy is no longer very ef­fect­ive be­cause in­terest rates are already so low, then her in­flu­ence may be far more lim­ited than, say, Green­span’s was in the hey­day of “ir­ra­tion­al ex­uber­ance.” But, even­tu­ally, Gertler says, “she’s go­ing to carve her own niche,” per­haps by ex­pand­ing the Fed’s man­date to tar­get high­er GDP growth and fur­ther re­strain­ing Wall Street.

The past sev­er­al Fed chiefs have all seemed oddly suited to their mo­ments. The ci­gar-chomp­ing Paul Vol­ck­er was just the man to tame run­away in­fla­tion in the ‘70s and ‘80s. Green­span, des­pite his er­rors on de­reg­u­la­tion, was the right Fed chair­man to handle the era of ir­ra­tion­al ex­uber­ance and sud­den pro­ductiv­ity growth in the 1990s (one of his less­er-sung tri­umphs, in fact, was to hold off rais­ing rates at a time when many eco­nom­ists, in­clud­ing Yel­len, were ur­ging him to worry about in­fla­tion — and he prob­ably saved mil­lions of jobs that way). “Heli­copter Ben” Bernanke, of course, was just the sa­vior we needed to pre­vent an­oth­er Great De­pres­sion. 

In the end, all of these Fed chair­men pro­foundly changed the course of the U.S. eco­nomy (and Vol­ck­er, though in re­tire­ment, is still do­ing so with the just-ap­proved “Vol­ck­er Rule” that will bar banks from the ris­ki­est trad­ing). There is every reas­on to think Janet Yel­len will have just as much im­pact, in her own spe­cial way.

What We're Following See More »
TAKING A LONG VIEW TO SOUTHERN STATES
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
2 days ago
THE DETAILS

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Source:
‘PITTING PEOPLE AGAINST EACH OTHER’
Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Source:
THE TIME IS NOW, TED
Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Source:
CHRISTIE, BUSH TRYING TO TAKE HIM DOWN
Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Source:
ARE YOU THE GATEKEEPER?
Sanders: Obama Is a Progressive
1 days ago
THE LATEST

“Do I think President Obama is a progressive? Yeah, I do,” said Bernie Sanders, in response to a direct question in tonight’s debate. “I think they’ve done a great job.” But Hillary Clinton wasn’t content to sit out the latest chapter in the great debate over the definition of progressivism. “In your definition, with you being the gatekeeper of progressivism, I don’t think anyone else fits that definition,” she told Sanders.

×