The Fed, Elections and Coincidence – an Aside
Regular readers may recall I’ve been looking at money supply and growth rates, and lately I’ve had a few posts on whether the Fed is attempting to influence elections or not. Some readers have noted that things I’ve noted – increased real M2 per capita around Presidential elections when there is an incumbent from the same party as the Fed chair and decreased real M2 per capita around elections in which there is a Presidential election in which there is an incumbent from a party different than the Fed chair – could be pure coincidence. Some have objected that the Fed doesn’t control money supply directly, etc.
So I’m continuing on. Last night I did some work looking at interest rates (nominal and real). Assuming I didn’t make a mistake (and I want to check my work before I post it, so hopefully it will go up later today or tomorrow) results are interesting. And its quite possible I will have additional posts on the topic after that.
But let us say that several weeks go by, and I manage to provide a pretty good proof of my contention. Let us say, hypothetical, that most people, when they see the evidence, agree that over the past 50 years or so, the Fed has been pretty blatant about interfering in elections.
Then what? Is it possible to prosecute individual members of the Fed board for something like that? What are the nuts and bolts?