Promoting New Bank Formation Act

— 737 — Federal Reserve by ensuring that cash earns a positive (inflation-adjusted) rate of return, it can pre- vent households and businesses from holding inefficiently small money balances. Further benefits of free banking include dramatic reduction of economic cycles, an end to indirect financing of federal spending, removal of the “lender of last resort” permanent bailout function of central banks, and promotion of currency competition.26 This allows Americans many more ways to protect their savings. Because free banking implies that financial services and banking would be gov- erned by general business laws against, for example, fraud or misrepresentation, crony regulatory burdens that hurt customers would be dramatically eased, and innovation would be encouraged. Potential downsides of free banking stem from its greatest benefit: It has mas- sive political hurdles to clear. Economic theory predicts and economic history confirms that free banking is both stable and productive, but it is radically different from the system we have now. Transitioning to free banking would require polit- ical authorities, including Congress and the President, to coordinate on multiple reforms simultaneously. Getting any of them wrong could imbalance an otherwise functional system. Ironically, it is the very strength of a true free banking system that makes transitioning to one so difficult. Commodity-Backed Money. For most of U.S. history, the dollar was defined in terms of both gold and silver. The problem was that when the legal price differed from the market price, the artificially undervalued currency would disappear from circulation. There were times, for instance, when this mechanism put the U.S. on a de facto silver standard. However, as a result, inflation was limited. Given this track record, restoring a gold standard retains some appeal among monetary reformers who do not wish to go so far as abolishing the Federal Reserve. Both the 2012 and 2016 GOP platforms urged the establishment of a commis- sion to consider the feasibility of a return to the gold standard,27 and in October 2022, Representative Alexander Mooney (R–WV) introduced a bill to restore the gold standard.28 In economic effect, commodity-backing the dollar differs from free banking in that the government (via the Fed) maintains both regulatory and bailout functions. However, manipulation of money and credit is limited because new dollars are not costless to the federal government: They must be backed by some hard asset like gold. Compared to free banking, then, the benefits of commodity-backed money are reduced, but transition disruptions are also smaller. The process of commodity backing is very straightforward: Treasury could set the price of a dollar at today’s market price of $2,000 per ounce of gold. This means that each Federal Reserve note could be redeemed at the Federal Reserve and exchanged for 1/2000 ounce of gold—about $80, for example, for a gold coin the weight of a dime. Private bank liabilities would be redeemable upon their issuers. Banks could send those traded-in dollars to the Treasury for gold to replenish their — 738 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise vaults. This creates a powerful self-policing mechanism: If the federal govern- ment creates dollars too quickly, more people will doubt the peg and turn in their gold to banks, which then will turn in their gold and drain the government’s gold. This forces governments to rein in spending and inflation lest their gold reserves become depleted. One concern raised against commodity backing is that there is not enough gold in the federal government for all the dollars in existence. This is solved by making sure that the initial peg on gold is correct. Also, in reality, a very small number of users trade for gold as long as they believe the government will stick to the price peg. The mere fact that people could exchange dollars for gold is what acts as the enforcer. After all, if one is confident that a dollar will still be worth 1/2000 ounce of gold in a year, it is much easier to walk about with paper dollars and use credit cards than it is to mail tiny $80 coins. People would redeem en masse only if they feared the government would not be able control itself, for which the only solution is for the government to control itself. Beyond full backing, alternate paths to gold backing might involve gold-con- vertible Treasury instruments29 or allowing a parallel gold standard to operate temporarily alongside the current fiat dollar.30 These could ease adoption while minimizing disruption, but they should be temporary so that we can quickly enjoy the benefits of gold’s ability to police government spending. In addition, Congress could simply allow individuals to use commodity-backed money without fully replacing the current system. Among downsides to a commodity standard, there is no guarantee that the gov- ernment will stick to the price peg. Also, allowing a commodity standard to operate along with a fiat dollar opens both up for a speculative attack. Another downside is that even under a commodity standard, the Federal Reserve can still influence the economy via interest rate or other interventions. Therefore, at best, a commodity standard is not a full solution to returning to free banking. We have good reasons to worry that central banks and the gold standard are fundamentally incompati- ble—as the disastrous experience of the Western nations on their “managed gold standards” between World War I and World War II showed. K-Percent Rule. Under this rule, proposed by Milton Friedman in 1960,31 the Federal Reserve would create money at a fixed rate—say 3 percent per year. By offering the inflation benefits of gold without the potential disruption to the finan- cial system, a K-Percent Rule could be a more politically viable alternative to gold. The principal flaw is that unlike commodities, a K-Percent Rule is not fixed by physical costs: It could change according to political pressures or random economic fluctuations. Importantly, financial innovation could destabilize the market’s demand for liquidity, as happened with changes in consumer credit pat- terns in the 1970s. When this happens, a given K-Percent Rule that previously delivered stability could become destabilizing. In addition, monetary policy when

— 737 — Federal Reserve by ensuring that cash earns a positive (inflation-adjusted) rate of return, it can pre- vent households and businesses from holding inefficiently small money balances. Further benefits of free banking include dramatic reduction of economic cycles, an end to indirect financing of federal spending, removal of the “lender of last resort” permanent bailout function of central banks, and promotion of currency competition.26 This allows Americans many more ways to protect their savings. Because free banking implies that financial services and banking would be gov- erned by general business laws against, for example, fraud or misrepresentation, crony regulatory burdens that hurt customers would be dramatically eased, and innovation would be encouraged. Potential downsides of free banking stem from its greatest benefit: It has mas- sive political hurdles to clear. Economic theory predicts and economic history confirms that free banking is both stable and productive, but it is radically different from the system we have now. Transitioning to free banking would require polit- ical authorities, including Congress and the President, to coordinate on multiple reforms simultaneously. Getting any of them wrong could imbalance an otherwise functional system. Ironically, it is the very strength of a true free banking system that makes transitioning to one so difficult. Commodity-Backed Money. For most of U.S. history, the dollar was defined in terms of both gold and silver. The problem was that when the legal price differed from the market price, the artificially undervalued currency would disappear from circulation. There were times, for instance, when this mechanism put the U.S. on a de facto silver standard. However, as a result, inflation was limited. Given this track record, restoring a gold standard retains some appeal among monetary reformers who do not wish to go so far as abolishing the Federal Reserve. Both the 2012 and 2016 GOP platforms urged the establishment of a commis- sion to consider the feasibility of a return to the gold standard,27 and in October 2022, Representative Alexander Mooney (R–WV) introduced a bill to restore the gold standard.28 In economic effect, commodity-backing the dollar differs from free banking in that the government (via the Fed) maintains both regulatory and bailout functions. However, manipulation of money and credit is limited because new dollars are not costless to the federal government: They must be backed by some hard asset like gold. Compared to free banking, then, the benefits of commodity-backed money are reduced, but transition disruptions are also smaller. The process of commodity backing is very straightforward: Treasury could set the price of a dollar at today’s market price of $2,000 per ounce of gold. This means that each Federal Reserve note could be redeemed at the Federal Reserve and exchanged for 1/2000 ounce of gold—about $80, for example, for a gold coin the weight of a dime. Private bank liabilities would be redeemable upon their issuers. Banks could send those traded-in dollars to the Treasury for gold to replenish their

— 732 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise by printing money to finance its operations. This necessitated the original Federal Reserve’s decentralization and political independence. Not long after the central bank’s creation, however, monetary decision-making power was transferred away from regional member banks and consolidated in the Board of Governors. The Federal Reserve’s independence is presumably supported by its mandate to maintain stable prices. Yet central bank independence is challenged in two addi- tional ways. First, like any other public institution, the Federal Reserve responds to the potential for political oversight when faced with challenges.2 Consequently, its independence in conducting monetary policy is more assured when the economy is experiencing sustained growth and when there is low unemployment and price stabil- ity—but less so in a crisis.3 Additionally, political pressure has led the Federal Reserve to use its power to regulate banks as a way to promote politically favorable initiatives including those aligned with environmental, social, and governance (ESG) objectives.4 Even formal grants of power by Congress have not markedly improved Federal Reserve actions. Congress gave the Federal Reserve greater regulatory authority over banks after the stock market crash of 1929. During the Great Depression, the Federal Reserve was given the power to set reserve requirements on banks and to regulate loans for the purchase of securities. During the stagflation of the 1970s, Congress expanded the Federal Reserve’s mandate to include “maximum employ- ment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.”5 In the wake of the 2008 global financial crisis, the Federal Reserve’s banking and financial regulatory authorities were broadened even further. The Great Recession also led to innova- tions by the central bank such as additional large-scale asset purchases. Together, these expansions have created significant risks associated with “too big to fail” financial institutions and have facilitated government debt creation.6 Collec- tively, such developments have eroded the Federal Reserve’s economic neutrality. In essence, because of its vastly expanded discretionary powers with respect to monetary and regulatory policy, the Fed lacks both operational effectiveness and political independence. To protect the Federal Reserve’s independence and to improve monetary policy outcomes, Congress should limit its mandate to the sole objective of stable money. This chapter provides a number of options aimed at achieving these goals along with the costs and benefits of each policy recommendation. These recommended reforms are divided into two parts: broad institutional changes and changes involv- ing the Federal Reserve’s management of the money supply. BROAD RECOMMENDATIONS l Eliminate the “dual mandate.” The Federal Reserve was originally created to “furnish an elastic currency” and rediscount commercial paper so that the supply of credit could increase along with the demand for money — 733 — Federal Reserve and bank credit. In the 1970s, the Federal Reserve’s mission was amended to maintain macroeconomic stability following the abandonment of the gold standard.7 This included making the Federal Reserve responsible for maintaining full employment, stable prices, and long-term interest rates. Supporters of this more expansive mandate claim that monetary policy is needed to help the economy avoid or escape recessions. Hence, even if there is a built-in bias toward inflation, that bias is worth it to avoid the pain of economic stagnation. This accommodationist view is wrong. In fact, that same easy money causes the clustering of failures that can lead to a recession. In other words, the dual mandate may inadvertently contribute to recessions rather than fixing them. A far less harmful alternative is to focus the Federal Reserve on protecting the dollar and restraining inflation. This can mitigate economic turmoil, perhaps in conjunction with government spending. Fiscal policy can be more effective if it is timely, targeted, and temporary.8 An example from the COVID-19 pandemic is the Paycheck Protection Program, which sustained businesses far more effectively than near-zero interest rates, which mainly aided asset markets and housing prices. It is also worth noting that the problem of the dual mandate may worsen with new pressure on the Federal Reserve to include environmental or redistributionist “equity” goals in its policymaking, which will likely enable additional federal spending.9 l Limit the Federal Reserve’s lender-of-last-resort function. To protect banks that over lend during easy money episodes, the Federal Reserve was assigned a “lender of last resort” (LOLR) function. This amounts to a standing bailout offer and encourages banks and nonbank financial institutions to engage in reckless lending or even speculation that both exacerbates the boom-and-bust cycle and can lead to financial crises such as those of 199210 and 200811 with ensuing bailouts. This function should be limited so that banks and other financial institutions behave more prudently, returning to their traditional role as conservative lenders rather than taking risks that are too large and lead to still another taxpayer bailout. Such a reform should be given plenty of lead time so that banks can self-correct lending practices without disrupting a financial system that has grown accustomed to such activities. l Wind down the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet. Until the 2008 crisis, the Federal Reserve never held more than $1 trillion in assets, bought largely