The Federal Reserve at 110: A Mixed Record Challenges the Case for Central Banking

TL;DR: The Federal Reserve's 110-year history reveals a paradox: it was created to solve "market failures" that were largely government-caused, yet its own performance ranges from catastrophic (Great Depression) to competent (Great Moderation). Pre-Fed panics resulted mainly from railroad subsidies, currency manipulation, and banking restrictions—not pure market failures. While classic bank runs decreased after 1913, the Fed presided over America's worst economic collapse, destroyed long-term price stability, and continues to generate boom-bust cycles. The case for central banking as superior to market mechanisms remains empirically unproven.

The Federal Reserve celebrates its 110th anniversary amid persistent questions about whether America's central bank has delivered on its founding promise: economic stability. The answer, according to comprehensive historical analysis, is far more troubling than conventional wisdom suggests. Not only has the Fed's performance been inconsistent at best and catastrophic at worst, but the very "market failures" it was designed to fix were largely created by government intervention in the first place.

The Paradox of Pre-Fed Panics

The standard narrative holds that 19th-century banking panics—1873, 1893, and 1907—demonstrated that free markets were inherently unstable and required central bank management. But detailed examination of these crises reveals a different story: each panic traced directly to government intervention distorting market signals.

The Panic of 1873 followed massive railroad overbuilding fueled by government subsidies. Between 1850 and 1871, the federal government granted railroads 175 million acres of land—an area larger than Texas—plus $64 million in direct subsidies and generous per-mile construction payments. This intervention eliminated normal market risk assessment, encouraging speculative construction of routes chosen for maximum subsidy rather than economic viability.

When Jay Cooke & Company collapsed in September 1873 after financing the Northern Pacific Railroad (recipient of the largest land grant in history: 47 million acres), it triggered a cascade of failures across railroad-dependent banks and businesses. The subsequent depression lasted six years.

Contrast this with James J. Hill's Great Northern Railway, built 1889-1893 entirely without government subsidies or land grants. Hill carefully surveyed routes for actual economic demand, built incrementally as revenue justified expansion, and remained profitable through the 1893 panic while subsidized competitors went bankrupt. His railroad never failed during his lifetime.

The Panic of 1893 resulted from the Sherman Silver Purchase Act of 1890, which required the Treasury to purchase 4.5 million ounces of silver monthly to satisfy mining interests and inflationists. This purely political intervention created dual monetary standard uncertainty—would the dollar remain gold-backed or shift to silver?—triggering capital flight as European investors withdrew funds and domestic holders hoarded gold. Treasury reserves fell from $190 million in 1890 to $100 million by 1893, confidence collapsed, and 500 banks failed.

The Panic of 1907 exposed how the National Banking Acts of 1863-1864 had created systemic fragility. These laws, designed to finance the Civil War by creating demand for federal bonds, required banks to hold government bonds as collateral for currency issuance and established "reserve pyramiding"—country banks held reserves in city banks, which held reserves in New York banks, which lent those reserves in the stock market.

This government-mandated structure meant any New York disruption affected the entire country. When the Knickerbocker Trust failed in October 1907 during peak autumn harvest season currency demand, the artificially inelastic currency system froze. The crisis was resolved only when J.P. Morgan personally organized a private rescue, locking bank presidents in his library until they agreed to pool reserves.

The Canadian Alternative That Worked

Perhaps the most damning evidence against the "market failure" narrative comes from Canada, which had no central bank until 1935 yet proved far more stable than the United States throughout the pre-Fed and early Fed periods.

During the Panic of 1893, no Canadian banks failed. During the Panic of 1907, no Canadian banks failed. From 1930-1933, while 9,000 of America's 25,000 banks collapsed, Canada's banking system remained intact.

The critical difference wasn't central banking—Canada didn't have one. It was the absence of U.S. regulatory restrictions. Canada permitted nationwide branch banking, allowing major institutions like the Royal Bank and Bank of Montreal to operate hundreds of branches, diversify geographically, and shift capital from surplus regions to deficit regions. The United States prohibited or severely restricted branch banking through state laws that protected local banking monopolies while creating catastrophic geographic concentration risk.

When the Great Depression struck, American unit banks tied to single communities and dependent on local commodity prices failed en masse. Canadian branch banks, diversified across the entire economy, survived.

The Fed's Actual Performance: From Catastrophe to Mediocrity

The Great Depression: Worse Than Anything Before

No assessment of Federal Reserve performance can ignore that the worst economic collapse in American history occurred not in the "chaotic" pre-Fed era, but under central bank management.

From 1929 to 1933:

GDP fell 27% (versus 6-8% in pre-Fed panics)
Unemployment reached 25%
9,000 banks failed (36% of all banks)
Stock market declined 89%
Wholesale prices fell 32%

The Fed, created specifically as "lender of last resort" to prevent such catastrophes, instead allowed the money supply to contract by one-third while standing passive as banks failed in waves. Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz's definitive analysis in A Monetary History of the United States (1963) concluded the Fed catastrophically failed by pursuing tight money policy when expansion was desperately needed.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke acknowledged this in 2002: "Regarding the Great Depression, you're right, we did it. We're very sorry."

The comparison to pre-Fed panics is stark:

Panic of 1873: 6-year depression, GDP fell ~7%
Panic of 1893: 4-year depression, GDP fell ~6%
Panic of 1907: 2-year recession, GDP fell ~8%
Great Depression: 10+ year crisis, GDP fell 27%

The institution created to prevent financial catastrophe presided over one objectively worse than any that occurred without it.

The Inflation Record: Price Stability Destroyed

The empirical evidence on inflation is unambiguous. The pre-Fed gold standard, for all its volatility, maintained long-term price stability:

1870-1913: Average inflation -0.03% annually
A dollar in 1870 purchased roughly the same goods in 1913
Wars caused temporary inflation that reversed in peacetime

Under Federal Reserve management:

1913-2023: Average inflation 3.4% annually
A 1913 dollar equals approximately $0.03 in 2023 purchasing power
97% loss of value over 110 years

This isn't a temporary aberration—it's the inherent character of fiat currency managed by institutions facing political pressure to inflate. Every fiat currency in history has inflated because the political economy of central banking creates systematic bias toward monetary expansion: inflation benefits debtors (including government), stimulates employment short-term, and imposes costs that are diffuse and delayed.

The gold standard's automatic discipline prevented this. Central banking discretion enables it.

Post-WWII: Better Performance, Ambiguous Attribution

The Fed's strongest performance came during the post-World War II "Great Moderation" (1984-2007):

Average GDP growth: 3.2%
Average inflation: 2.8%
Only two mild recessions
GDP volatility standard deviation: 1.5%

But attributing this stability solely to Fed competence is problematic. Multiple factors contributed:

FDIC deposit insurance (eliminated classic bank runs)
Automatic stabilizers (progressive taxation, unemployment insurance)
Structural economic changes (shift to services, better inventory management)
Globalization and favorable demographics
Simple good luck (no major oil shocks, wars, or external crises)

The 2008 financial crisis, which the Fed failed to foresee or prevent despite its regulatory authority, suggests the Great Moderation owed as much to fortunate circumstances as central bank wisdom.

The Leadership Dependency Problem

Fed performance has varied dramatically with leadership quality:

Competent Periods:

Benjamin Strong (NY Fed, 1914-1928)
Paul Volcker (1979-1987): Broke inflation despite political pressure
Alan Greenspan (1987-2006): Presided over Great Moderation

Catastrophic Periods:

Post-Strong leadership (1928-1933): Great Depression
Arthur Burns (1970-1978): Accommodated inflation
Pre-2008 (all leaders): Failed to prevent housing bubble

This variability reveals a fundamental problem: if central banking requires rare competence and political independence to function well, success is fragile and impermanent. Why create an institution whose effectiveness depends on finding superhuman wisdom every few years?

The free market counterargument is compelling: automatic mechanisms requiring no special wisdom (price signals, profit/loss discipline, competitive discovery) may produce better average outcomes than discretionary management that occasionally excels but frequently fails.

What Free Markets Actually Required

The claim that "free markets would self-stabilize" requires refinement. Historical evidence suggests markets didn't need central banking—they needed removal of government interventions creating instability:

Instead of creating the Fed in 1913, the U.S. could have:

Ended unit banking restrictions: Permitted nationwide branch banking as in Canada
Reformed the National Banking Acts: Allowed private clearinghouse currency elasticity
Maintained consistent gold standard: No political monetary manipulation like the Sherman Silver Purchase Act
Ended subsidy programs: Let markets allocate capital to sustainable projects
Reduced tariffs: Eliminated malinvestment in politically-protected industries

The Canadian experience strongly suggests this approach would have worked better than adding a central bank with its own failure modes.

The Misdiagnosis That Persists

The pattern that created the Federal Reserve continues today: government interventions cause instability, which is then blamed on "market failure," justifying additional intervention that creates new problems.

The Ratchet Effect:

Government intervenes (subsidies, regulations, monetary manipulation)
Intervention creates distortions and instability
Instability blamed on "market failure"
New intervention proposed to "fix" market failure
New intervention creates new problems
Repeat—never removing the original harmful intervention

Modern examples abound:

Unit banking laws → bank fragility → deposit insurance → moral hazard → too-big-to-fail
Fed easy money → housing bubble → financial crisis → massive intervention → asset bubbles and wealth inequality

The Honest Assessment

After 110 years, what can we conclude objectively about the Federal Reserve?

Clear Failures:

Presided over worst economic catastrophe in U.S. history (Great Depression)
Destroyed long-term price stability (97% currency devaluation)
Failed to prevent 1970s stagflation
Contributed to repeated asset bubbles (2000, 2008)
Created moral hazard through too-big-to-fail policies

Partial Successes:

Classic banking panics decreased (though FDIC deserves much credit)
Post-WWII recessions became shorter and milder (attribution disputed)
Crisis response capability in 2008 and 2020 prevented immediate collapse
Provides coordination point for financial system during stress

Ambiguous Results:

GDP growth lower under Fed than pre-Fed (but maturation factors complicate comparison)
GDP volatility decreased post-WWII (multiple contributing factors)
Employment stability improved (automatic stabilizers matter too)
Financial innovation both enabled and constrained

The empirical record does not support the claim that central banking has delivered superior stability compared to the counterfactual of removing government interventions that caused pre-Fed instability.

Different Systems, Different Failure Modes

Neither pure free markets nor central banking has achieved consistent stability. Each exhibits different failure modes with different costs:

Free Market/Gold Standard Problems:

Severe deflations requiring political tolerance
Banking panics every 15-20 years
Prolonged depressions (5+ years)
Required oligarchic coordination (J.P. Morgan) during crises
Political unsustainability (populist rebellions against deflation)

Central Banking/Fiat Currency Problems:

Chronic inflation destroying savings
Great Depression (worse than any pre-Fed crisis)
Stagflation
Repeated asset bubbles
Moral hazard and too-big-to-fail
Political interference and deficit financing

The question isn't which system is perfect—neither is. The question is which failure modes are more tolerable, and whether the problems attributed to markets were actually caused by government intervention.

The Unanswered Counterfactual

We cannot know with certainty what would have happened if the United States had followed Canada's path: no central bank, but also fewer banking restrictions and less government intervention in capital allocation.

But the evidence strongly suggests:

Pre-Fed instability was substantially government-caused, not market failure
Canadian stability without central banking proves alternatives worked
Fed's worst failures (Great Depression, chronic inflation) exceeded pre-Fed problems
Fed's successes are difficult to separate from other policy changes (FDIC, automatic stabilizers)

The case for the Federal Reserve rests on misdiagnosing government failures as market failures, then proposing more government intervention to fix problems government intervention created.

Conclusion: Eternal Vigilance Still Required

The deepest truth emerging from 110 years of Federal Reserve history is that no system automatically delivers stability. All economic systems require institutions, rules, enforcement, and capable people to function well.

"Free markets" require property rights, contract enforcement, bankruptcy law, and fraud prevention. Central banking requires political independence, competent leadership, and appropriate rules. Gold standards require international cooperation and political tolerance of deflation. Fiat currency requires institutional discipline that political economy makes nearly impossible.

The question isn't whether to have institutions—that's unavoidable. The question is which institutions, with what rules, accountable to whom, and constrained how.

After 110 years, the Federal Reserve has not proven that central banking expertise surpasses market mechanisms. It has proven that concentrated power—whether in private hands (J.P. Morgan) or public institutions (the Fed)—is dangerous, prone to catastrophic failure, and requires constant scrutiny.

The real lesson isn't that we need more central planning or purer free markets. It's that we need honest diagnosis of whether instability originates in market failures or government interventions, and the intellectual humility to admit when institutions created with good intentions—from railroad subsidies to central banking—have failed to deliver promised benefits while imposing substantial costs.

The price of economic stability, like the price of freedom, is eternal vigilance—not against markets or government per se, but against the reflexive assumption that any problem requires more centralized control, and the willingness to examine whether problems attributed to market failure actually originated in government intervention.

That examination, applied to the Federal Reserve's 110-year record, yields an uncomfortable conclusion: the case for central banking remains unproven, while the case that it solved problems government created, while creating new problems of its own, grows stronger with each passing decade.

Sources

Friedman, M., & Schwartz, A.J. (1963). A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960. Princeton University Press.
Rothbard, M.N. (1963). America's Great Depression. D. Van Nostrand Company.
Rothbard, M.N. (2002). A History of Money and Banking in the United States: The Colonial Era to World War II. Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Timberlake, R.H. (1993). Monetary Policy in the United States: An Intellectual and Institutional History. University of Chicago Press.
Eichengreen, B. (1992). Golden Fetters: The Gold Standard and the Great Depression, 1919-1939. Oxford University Press.
Romer, C.D. (1989). "The Prewar Business Cycle Reconsidered: New Estimates of Gross National Product, 1869-1908." Journal of Political Economy, 97(1), 1-37.
Calomiris, C.W., & Gorton, G. (1991). "The Origins of Banking Panics: Models, Facts, and Bank Regulation." In Financial Markets and Financial Crises, edited by R. Glenn Hubbard, 109-174. University of Chicago Press.
Selgin, G.A. (1988). The Theory of Free Banking: Money Supply under Competitive Note Issue. Rowman & Littlefield.
White, L.H. (1984). Free Banking in Britain: Theory, Experience and Debate, 1800-1845. Cambridge University Press.
Bordo, M.D., & Wheelock, D.C. (2013). "The Promise and Performance of the Federal Reserve as Lender of Last Resort 1914-1933." In The Origins, History, and Future of the Federal Reserve. Cambridge University Press.
Bernanke, B.S. (2002). "Remarks at the Conference to Honor Milton Friedman." University of Chicago, November 8, 2002.
Meltzer, A.H. (2003). A History of the Federal Reserve, Volume 1: 1913-1951. University of Chicago Press.
National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). Business Cycle Dating Committee. https://www.nber.org/research/business-cycle-dating
Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED). Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Index Historical Data. https://www.bls.gov/cpi/
Reinhart, C.M., & Rogoff, K.S. (2009). This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly. Princeton University Press.
Hayek, F.A. (1933). Monetary Theory and the Trade Cycle. Jonathan Cape.
Kydland, F.E., & Prescott, E.C. (1977). "Rules Rather than Discretion: The Inconsistency of Optimal Plans." Journal of Political Economy, 85(3), 473-491.

Search This Blog

State of The Nation

Has the Federal Reserve System been a net Benefit to the US