View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

For release on delivery
10 a.m EST
January 22, 1991

Testimony by
Alan Greenspan
Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
before the
Committee on the Budget
U S. House of Representatives
January 22, 1991

Mr

Chairman, I am pleased to be here today

As you know, the

Federal Reserve will submit its semiannual report on monetary policy to
the Congress next month.

That report will cover in detail the System's

policy targets for 1991, as well as our expectations for growth and
inflation.

I'm sure you can understand that I would be reluctant to

anticipate those projections even under normal circumstances, but these
are far from normal circumstances, and clearly we shall be in a better
position to address the outlook with greater precision once some of the
uncertainties associated with the Gulf conflict have been resolved

I

do think, however, that we can focus productively today on some of the
other considerations bearing on our nation's economic prospects and on
the appropriate course for policy in the current environment
All indications are that business activity declined appreciably
in the fourth quarter of 1990

When I appeared before the House Banking

Committee in November, I noted that aggregate output had turned down as
we moved through October and into November
continued in December.

The contraction apparently

In the labor market, payroll employment fell

another 75,000, after even bigger declines in the preceding two months,
and the civilian unemployment rate rose further, to 6 1 percent
Manufacturing output continued to fall rapidly, and the index of
industrial production is estimated to have dropped another 0 6 percent
The December drop in industrial production brings the total
decline since September to around 3 percent

Close to half of that

decline is attributable to cutbacks in the output of motor vehicles and
parts, and production of construction supplies also has been
exceptionally weak

Reductions have occurred elsewhere as well

-2-

Events in the Persian Gulf clearly were a key factor in
explaining why business activity weakened so markedly this past autumn.
Specifically, the jump in prices of petroleum products cut into the real
disposable income of households and thus contributed to the softness in
spending for a wide range of goods and services

Moreover, many firms,

whose profit margins already were being squeezed by higher energy costs,
curbed production to prevent inventory buildups; and they have trimmed
capital spending plans in response to actual or expected reductions

m

the demand for their output in the wake of the energy price hikes
But the damage from the Persian Gulf crisis went beyond the
direct effect of higher oil prices

Indeed, the enormous uncertainty

about how, and when, it would be resolved contributed to a marked
erosion of consumer and business confidence about prospects for the
economy

Faced with such uncertainty, producers and consumers tend to

withdraw from their normal activities while they wait for clearer
signals of economic developments and avoid making commitments that might
be costly to reverse
Of course, the crisis in the Persian Gulf was not the only
factor restraining activity

In particular, the evidence suggests that

banks—along with other lenders—have tightened the terms and other
conditions for supplying credit, and some borrowers undoubtedly have
encountered greater difficulty obtaining financing.

Such difficulties

are clearest in the commercial real estate market, but they extend to
borrowing for a variety of other purposes as well
Assessing the economic outlook is especially daunting at the
present time—and not solely because of the enormous uncertainties

-3-

surrounding the war in the Persian Gulf.

To be sure, the information on

economic activity in recent weeks is extremely limited

But as best we

can judge, the latest data contain some hints that the effects of the
initial shock last August have largely worked their way through the
system and that the downward pressures on activity may be lessening
Nonetheless, we must also recognize the possibility that overall
activity may decline further before an upturn takes hold.

Such an

outcome could result if, for example, the serious weakness in some parts
of the country were to spread to regions where activity is stronger or,
alternatively, if consumer and business confidence has been so shaken by
events since August that further reductions in spending are in store
Clearly, problems in real estate markets will be a drag on the
economy for a time, especially in view of the role they have played in
exacerbating the difficulties financial institutions face

In the

residential sector, concern about home prices and worries over 30b and
income prospects seem to be deterring potential homebuyers—although,
with mortgage rates down, homes are more affordable than they have been
in some time

In the commercial sector, the overhang of vacant space

remains heavy despite the reductions to date in new construction
Granted, outlays for office and other commercial buildings amount to
only about 1 percent of GNP, and thus the direct effects on overall
economic activity of even a sharp contraction in new construction are
limited

Nevertheless, because existing commercial properties

constitute such a large share of the stock of assets that have to be
financed, a deep drop in the value of existing buildings implies sizable

-4-

losses on the balance sheets of banks and other financial institutions,
with repercussions that extend beyond the construction industry
At the same time, other factors support optimism about the
outlook for activity.

First, the depreciation of the dollar over the

past year should buoy the growth of exports, even in the face of some
slowing of economic expansion abroad

It also should help to restrain

imports, and thus to shift some domestic demand to U S. producers

Of

course, this is not to imply that the lower dollar is entirely a
blessing-

It adds to inflation pressures, and it may contribute to

instability in financial markets.
One feature of developments to date that bodes especially well
for activity is the apparent rapidity with which producers have
responded to the anticipated weakness in demand.

The data in hand are

scanty and subject to revision, but at this stage, overhangs of
inventories appear isolated and more manageable than they typically were
in cyclical downturns in the past

Thus, if final sales hold up—and I

am not fully confident we can assume that they will—much of the
production adjustment could be behind us

Moreover, any strengthening

in final demand would likely translate quickly into a pickup in output.
The automakers are a key example of this behavior-

They were

quick to slash assemblies even though sales had dropped rather
moderately and even though dealer stocks did not appear excessive by
historical standards.

To be sure, underlying demand was weaker than the

reported sales, which included sizable purchases by the big rental
firms, and the inventory figures must be evaluated in light of the
prospect that many of these cars will reenter the market as "nearly new"

-5-

in just a few months

But the reductions in motor vehicle output late

last year were prompt and substantial

All else equal, they were large

enough to cut more than 2 percentage points from the annual rate of real
GNP growth in the fourth quarter.

The good news is that most, if not

all, of the reduction in motor vehicle output may well be behind us,
judging by current production schedules for the first quarter
On the inflation side, apart from the uncertainties associated
with energy prices, the outlook seems to have improved over the past few
months

A good many signs point to an easing of wage pressures, and

some further diminution in wage inflation seems likely in the context of
the slack that has emerged in labor markets in recent months.

In

addition, the core rate of inflation in consumer prices over the past
several months has been running below that recorded earlier in the year
Against this background, the Federal Reserve has extended a
series of steps taken over the past year and a half to ease the stance
of monetary policy

Reflecting these actions, the federal funds rate

has come down about 3 percentage points, on balance, since the spring of
1989, from almost 10 percent to around 6-3/4 percent

Other short-term

rates have fallen appreciably as well, and long-term Treasury bond rates
are near the low end of their range for the last year.
The conduct of monetary policy over this period has involved a
careful balancing of the need to respond to signs that economic activity
was slowing perceptibly, on the one hand, and the need to contain
inflationary pressures on the other

The initial easing actions, taken

between June and December of 1989, were largely a response to
developments that began to suggest that a slackening in inflation might

-6-

be in prospect as indications of slower economic expansion continued to
accumulate and money growth remained sluggish relative to the annual
ranges

Policy was little changed, on net, in the first part of 1990,

as economic activity appeared to be well-maintained—albeit at a subdued
pace—but the inflation news was disappointing
By midyear, there were hints of moderation in inflation after
the earlier spurt, and incoming information pointed to sluggishness in
economic activity

In addition, restriction on credit supplies at

banks, signaled in part by lagging money growth, suggested that credit
conditions were tighter than intended, and thus policy was eased a notch
over the summer
Further actions have been taken in light of your fiscal actions
last fall, the weakening economy, continuing problems of credit
availability, and slow growth in the money aggregates

They include a

cut of 1/2 percentage point in the discount rate an mid-December to
6-1/2 percent, a reduction in certain required reserve ratios, and other
operations designed to make reserves more available
We expect that our actions to date will provide support to
economic activity in the quarters ahead.

Whether further adjustments to

policy will be needed is not known, decisions on that score will depend
on developing trends in financial markets and the economy

In that

regard, we shall want to make certain that money and credit remain on
suitable growth tracks

We are particularly concerned by the

sluggishness of the money stock in recent months, and our most recent
action was triggered in large part by further evidence of weak monetary
growth.

In addition, we are monitoring the credit situation carefully,

-7-

and we shall continue to review the economic data for signs that the
recession might be deepening

At the same time, we must take care to

avoid a policy that is overly stimulative

The amount of slack in the

economy is not great by historical standards, and an overly aggressive
monetary easing could end up being counterproductive.

Our aim should be

to encourage a sustainable recovery, rather than one that simply fosters
imbalances that will lead to the next downturn
Fiscal policymakers also will have to grapple with difficult
decisions in the months ahead

I anticipate that the economic forecasts

of the Congressional Budget Office and the Administration will show
declines in real GNP in both the fourth quarter of 1990 and the first
quarter of 1991

In that case, the Senate will be required—and the

House have the option—to consider a joint resolution suspending the
enforcement provisions of the budget reconciliation act
Voting to suspend the enforcement provisions in the absence of
compelling evidence of a deep or prolonged recession would be a mistake.
Together with the Administration, you worked long and hard last year to
assemble an acceptable package of spending and tax changes and budget
process reforms

By enacting the budget agreement, you gave financial

markets some assurance of stability and of future easing of federal
credit demands

Undercutting this commitment now might have adverse

effects on long-term interest rates and thus might well be selfdefeating
I recognize that you are likely to face considerable pressure
to take actions that would, in effect, expand the budget deficit
Concerns about the appropriateness of a policy of fiscal restraint in a

-8-

period of weak economic performance are understandable

However, they

must be balanced against the benefits that will flow from adhering to a
budget strategy that is geared to the longer-run needs of the economy
Those needs can best be met by ensuring that the underlying or
"structural" deficit remains on a downward track, even as the actual
deficit is being swollen temporarily by the effects of the weak economy
In addition, even in the absence of policy actions, the budget
will have a substantial stabilizing effect on the economy—something
clearly anticipated when the new budget procedures were designed

Among

other things, the focus on the reduction in the deficit brought about by
legislative action, rather than the level of the deficit per se,
eliminates the need for policy adjustments to offset the effects of
changes in economic conditions and thus allows the automatic stabilizers
to function as intended
Moreover, the historical evidence on the implementation of
discretionary countercyclical fiscal policy is not encouraging

Often

in the past, we have adopted programs that were designed to stimulate
the economy but that did not come on stream until well after the
recovery was under way.

If the predominant economic forecast for 1991

is roughly correct, taking stimulative action now may bring on a
repetition of that pattern

In that case, little would have been

accomplished in terms of alleviating our current difficulties, while
prospects for increases in capital accumulation and improvements in
productivity would have been set back
Furthermore, Operation Desert Storm is not subject to the cap
on defense spending, and FY1991 defense outlays undoubtedly will be

-9-

considerably higher than was anticipated last fall

Other nations are

expected to share in the cost of the war, and their contributions will
help to cushion the effect on the budget deficit.

But regardless of who

is paying for it, Desert Storm spending on newly produced domestic items
will boost U.S. GNP.
The problems of the deposit insurance system also must be
addressed, they, too, have implications for the budget and complicate
the interpretation of fiscal policy

Under the new budget procedures,

net outlays for deposit insurance will continue to be reflected in the
official on-budget figures, as well as in the broader measures of the
unified budget

The inclusion of deposit insurance in the budget totals

reduces the usefulness of the unified budget as an indicator of the
effect of the federal budget on the economy

Because deposit insurance

alters the incentives for the managers of financial institutions, it
undoubtedly has had significant effects on the real economy, but the
actual payouts have little further effect on credit markets, interest
rates, or economic activity
Thus, attention should focus on budget figures that exclude
deposit insurance, these include the alternative measure of the deficit
that the CBO highlighted in its Interim Assessment of the 1990 Budget
Agreement and the deficit as recorded in the National Income and Product
Accounts (NIPA)

Although the NIPA budget is similar to the unified

budget in many respects, it treats the lending and financial activities
of the federal sector in a way that is more useful for the analysis of
the balance of saving and investment and the effects of fiscal policy on
economic activity

Specifically, it reflects the interest paid or

-10-

received in the course of financial transactions, but it excludes the
transactions themselves
The rationale is that the National Income and Product Accounts
measure the nation's current income and production, and therefore
exclude transactions that are essentially an exchange of existing assets
and liabilities.

Such transactions affect the allocation and

distribution of income and output and thus can have a significant
economic impact, but they are analyzed more appropriately within a
financial-market framework

Outlays for deposit insurance are

essentially a liquidation of financial liabilities that were incurred
earlier

They do not represent current income to their recipients,

depositors do not become wealthier at the moment that their bank or
savings and loan institution is taken over by the government

Thus,

they are excluded from the NIPA
The credit reform provisions in the budget reconciliation act
improve the unified budget accounting for new loans and loan guarantees
and narrow the conceptual gap between the two budget measures

The

legislation also directed OMB and CBO to study the budgetary treatment
of deposit insurance, but, for the time being, it remains on a cash
basis

Outlays for deposit insurance caused a sizable divergence

between the NIPA and unified deficits in FY1990; and they undoubtedly
will differ substantially in 1991 and 1992 as well

Accordingly, it

will be especially important to monitor and to understand the NIPA
budget measure, which is designed specifically to provide information on
how fiscal policy is affecting the economy

-11-

The uncertainties in the current situation are great, and the
risks of making policy mistakes are high

We must, of course, remain

alert to events in the Persian Gulf and to their repercussions for the
U.S

economy

But we must also make sure that our policies remain

consistent with the achievement of our economic goals for the longer
run.