View original document

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

"sr

3livery
_ 9 : 3 0 A.M. , ELS..T
Ca <£\m

MAR 31986

Statement by
Paul A. Volcker
Chairmanr Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System




%fj

before the
Committee on the Budget
House of Representatives

February 26, 1986

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this
Committee today.

As you know, the Federal Reserve submitted

its semi-annual monetary policy report to the Congress last
week.

That report, which we have distributed to you, describes

in detail our plans for monetary policy, including the Federal
Open Market Committee's ranges for growth of money and credit.

C^' -A

copy of my statement to the Banking Committees has also been

provided.

My prepared remarks this morning will be brief and

%\
confined to more general considerations of domestic and international
I

*rl economic policies within the context of recent and prospective
developments.
The past year was one of further progress in the
nationfs economy.

Although the growth of domestic production

slowed last year, the rise in output still was sufficient to
generate 3 million new payroll jobs and to reduce the unemployment
rate significantly further.

Moreover, growth was sustained

consistent with maintaining the progress that had been achieved
on the inflation front.



-2As we move into 1986, the prospects for extending
the economic advances of the past year appear, by and largef
to be good*

The latest reports on employment, industrial

production and housing activity show further increases around
the turn of the year.

Confidence appears well maintained, cost

increases have been restrained, and interest rates, particularly
in the long-term area, have moved significantly lower.

The sharp

recent declines in the oil price, given the weight of energy in
the economy, appear to assure favorable price performance in the
months immediately ahead.
In this context, the Federal Open Market Committee at
its meeting earlier this month reaffirmed the tentative ranges
it had established last July for the broader monetary and credit
aggregates/ M2 and M3.

For Ml, the target range was widened to

take account of the greater uncertainty surrounding the behavior
of this aggregate, but the mid-point of the range was the same as
tentatively agreed six months ago.




«jj*)ip»'i*'v*;:'^«i :;vi

•*•. . * » « & * ¥ «

-3In deciding upon these ranges, the Committee understood
that particular uncertainty had surrounded the recent behavior of.
Ml and its velocity.

Consequently, evaluation of the significance

of changes in Ml will continue to be made in light of the trend
in the other monetary aggregates.

Moreover, evaluation of the

outlook for business activity and prices? as well as conditions in
domestic and international markets will, as in the past, contribute
to the operational judgments of the Committee in determining the
proper degree of pressure on reserve positions.
Consistent with this approach and the ranges set out,
members of the Federal Reserve Board and the Reserve Bank Presidents
expect that the economy will grow somewhat faster this year than
in 1985.

Views on the outlook for inflation were more diverse?

some expected additional slowing, while others anticipated a
moderate pickup from the 1985 inflation rate.

The "central

tendency" of the projections of real GNP and inflation for 1986
generally is a little lower than the Administration's forecasts




-4of about 4 percent each, and is closer to the growth projections
of the Congressional Budget Office.
not large.

However, the differences are

Indeed, the full range of expectations expressed by

Board Members and Bank Presidents does encompass both the
Administration's and the CBO f s figures.
Although prospects for economic performance in 1986
appear favorable at this time, there are inevitably some important
uncertainties and points of strain.

The two major, and interrelated,

imbalances that I have stressed so often in the past —
trade and fiscal deficits —

remain.

the enormous

But there is a potentially

crucial difference from the situation a year ago.

The actions by

the Congress and the Administration on the budget carry the clear
promise of progress toward better budgetary balance in the years
ahead.

At the same time, a substantial adjustment in exchange rates

has occurred during the past twelve months, improving the competitive
position of American firms and over time contributing to a reduction
in our trade deficit.




-5At the same time, we have to understand that both
developments —

substantially reduced budget and trade deficits --

will require hard and persistent efforts over a considerable period,
measured in years.

In the meantime, financing both deficits will

require a large continuing net inflow of funds from abroad.

That

is a major reason we must keep in mind the need to maintain
confidence in our currency and the potentially inflationary effects
of rapid depreciation,

A clear appreciation in the marketplace of

improved prospects for the deficit are a major element of protection
against those risks, and that is why I welcome the efforts made by
the Administration, the Congress, and this Committee to place the
budget deficit on a declining trend*
I recognize that reducing the deficit requires difficult
decisions.

From my particular position, I will refrain from

responding to your invitation as to where specific budgetary
cuts should be made? that process involves intensely political
choices entirely in the domain of the Congress and the Administration,




-6As I have indicated many times before, from a purely economic
perspective, the performance of the economy over time in terms
of efficiency and incentives tends to be better served by
approaching deficit-cutting from the spending side rather than
from the tax side*

Only if sufficient spending cuts cannot in

fact be enacted to place the deficit on a solidly declining trend
does the question of substantial action on the revenue side become
relevant.
The potential benefits of smaller budget deficits
already can be seen in improved market sentiment.

As you know,

both intermediate- and long-term interest rates have declined
sharply in recent months, interest rates generally are at the
lowest level since 1979, and the stock market has continued to
set new records.

Although other factors have played a role in

these developments —

for example, lower oil prices -- the prospects

for budgetary restraint clearly have been a critical factor.

The

effects of lower interest rates are beginning to be felt in housing
activity, where sales of single-family homes are at a six-year high




—7—
and housing starts are up most recently.

Lower rates and

higher stock prices should assist other private investment
decisions as well.
In the short run, as they become effective, deficit
reduction actions, taking account of their direct impact, restrain
the growth of income and potential economic activity.

Those direct

effects may, of course, be balanced by other economic developments,
including in part the beneficial effects of lower interest rates,
stimulated by the budget reductions themselves.
balance of these forces is hard to foresee —

The precise

at present, for

instance, the decline in oil prices itself is releasing purchasing
power to American consumers.
The balance of these forces, currently and prospectively,
is, of course, an important element in the judgments that we must
make on monetary policy, but I know of no way to express realistically
a kind of mathematical "tradeoff" in light of all the cross-currents
in the economy.




~8»

Trade and budget deficits are not the only imbalances
that pose uncertainties for the economic outlook.

Pervasive

pressures remain in much of the agricultural sectorf and key
manufacturing industries continue to face strong competition
from foreign producers.

In financial markets, a number of

institutions have had to cope with loan problems associated
with sectoral economic pressuresf the large debt burdens of
some borrowers at home or abroad, and the disinflationary process.
Beyond implications for monetary policy, this poses challenges for
banking supervisors and other public policies? the recently enacted
Farm Bill, for instance, will provide substantial elements of support
for the agricultural sector*

As I noted earlier, the decline in the

foreign exchange value of the dollar will help bring about an environment in which U.S. producers will be able to compete more effectively
in world markets.

And the efforts of many depository institutions

to bolster capital and reserves should help these institutions
to cope with financial strain.




-9-

It would be foolish, of course, to think that we have
prepared in advance for every eventuality.

Indeed, a number of

questions remain, including the strength of economic expansion
abroad, the impact of a declining dollar on U.S. inflation, and
the effect of lower oil prices on the financial health of domestic
energy producers and of a number of oil-exporting developing countries,
But adverse shocks in these areas, or others, should be manageable
if there is cooperative effort among all involved parties here and
abroad.
Mr. Chairman, you asked me to comment on any areas of
federal spending in which across-the-board spending cuts could have
disruptive effects in financial markets.

Given our particular

responsibilities, I must in that connection note that the ability
of the Federal Reserve and other bank regulatory agencies to add
resources to our supervisory efforts will inevitably be impacted.
While voluntarily complying with the spirit of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings
legislation, we intend to limit the impact of cuts in that high




-10-

priority area as much as feasible.

Our sister agencies* in some

instances, may have less flexibility*
This strikes me as one example of the need to make the
hard budget choices as a matter of considered national priority
rather than falling back on inevitably arbitrary "across-the-board"
sequestering procedures, however important the latter may be in
encouraging discipline.
Let me conclude my remarks by noting that we at the
Federal Reserve share common goals with the Congress and the
Administration —

maintaining sustainable growth of economic

activity in a context of greater price stability.
progress has been made over the past year.

Substantial

We also have to recognize

that we still have some distance to travel, and that indeed the
effort is never ending.

But we have come too far, and the stakes

are too high, to fail to meet the challenge now.




*******