A few days ago, Bryan Gould wrote an article for the Herald headlined, "Sonny Bill has a point about banks amid crisis". Almost everything he contended was wrong, writes Don Brash.
He began by noting that Labour Party finance spokesman Grant Robertson was arguing for some change in the legal framework within which the Reserve Bank of New Zealand operates.
One of the changes which Mr Robertson advocates is a move away from leaving all decision-making power about monetary policy in the hands of the governor of the bank once the governor and the Minister of Finance have agreed the rate of inflation which the Government wants the Reserve Bank to deliver. Fair enough - there are arguments for and against the single decision-maker model, and I can understand why some change may be regarded as desirable.
The second major change which Mr Robertson favours was described by Mr Gould as of no great moment, but in that he was wrong. Mr Robertson wants to widen what the Reserve Bank is to target with monetary policy from low inflation alone to low inflation plus full employment. He notes that other central banks, such as those in Australia and the US, operate under legislation which requires them to target both low inflation and full employment.
Quite true: in both countries, the legislation covering their central banks dates back to an era when economists (or at least politicians) believed that monetary policy could deliver both low inflation and full employment. We now understand monetary policy has no effect on the level of employment in the long run, and attempts to deliver a higher level of employment through easy monetary policy lead only to higher inflation.