Today's Hot Topics   ▲  |  ▼

The studies he cited were primarily by Fed economists. One, by Hess Chung and several others, was published in an external peer–reviewed journal—and please stay with me for a couple of paragraphs here.

That study said the Fed’s first round of quantitative easing in 2009 probably lowered long–term bond yields by 50 basis points, or half a percentage point, suggesting that “private payroll employment is currently 1.8 million higher, and the unemployment rate three–quarters of a percentage point lower, than would otherwise be the case,” the authors wrote.

Two economists at the Boston Fed, Jeffrey Fuhrer and Giovanni Olivei, said that QE2, which ran from late 2010 through mid–2011, could “be expected to raise real GDP by 60–90 basis points.” That “implies a decline in the unemployment rate of 30–45 basis points” or “an increase of about 700,000 jobs,” they concluded.

So there you have it: A $2 trillion increase in the Fed’s balance sheet may have gotten you roughly 2.5 million jobs, about what several outside economists say the Obama administration’s stimulus plan saved or created.

It also was close to the 2 million jobs I estimated the Bush tax cuts may have helped create in the mid–2000s.

• Read Howard’s piece on why it’s time to bury supply–side economics.

Who can claim any of these was a big success?

And that’s the problem. Three big policy initiatives based on three different economic philosophies all have failed to spur employment in the past decade.

• President Obama’s various Keynesian stimulus initiatives, which without tax cuts amounted to about $600 billion, have yielded modest results.
• Supply–side tax cuts, which Republicans still trumpet as the cure for whatever ails the economy, demonstrably did not produce many jobs during the Bush years. And by the way, did you know that President Obama’s own economic plans from 2009 through 2011 included over $500 billion in tax cuts, not including the two–year extension of the Bush tax cuts?
• And now, the unconventional monetary policy of the Federal Reserve, based on the theories of the great Milton Friedman, have fallen short as well.

“I don’t think what the Fed has done has had a huge impact,” said James Hamilton, an economics professor at UC San Diego. “I think the steps they took have helped prevent the situation from getting much worse.”

“I’m among those who think the Fed should be a little cautious and humble about what they can do. I don’t think the Fed can solve all the problems.”

Ben Bernanke might agree. In his Indianapolis speech this week, he said: “Monetary policy is no panacea.” That’s true for supply–side tax cuts and Keynesian stimulus as well. These policies may have prevented the very worst—another Great Depression—but they still haven’t produced a good recovery.

Keep that in mind when you listen to presidential candidates push ideas that in recent years just haven’t delivered the goods.