Chris Christie's criticism of the Fed is self-contradictory

At the GOP undercard debate, the candidates were asked to offer their views of the Federal Reserve's conduct of monetary policy. Not surprisingly, everyone who spoke took a dim view of President Obama's choice for the job, Janet Yellen. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie offered his criticism in a way that was both particularly pointed and strikingly self-contradictory, arguing that the Fed is simultaneously doing the wrong thing for the economy and helping Obama politically:

Now, when they cut interest rates during the economic recession and crisis, that was the right thing to do, but they have kept those interest rates artificially low and for one reason and one reason only: because they're trying to politically support Barack Obama and his agenda. And it's been wrong. What it has done in an administration where the president has talked about income inequality, he has more income inequality in this administration than any previous administration. The middle class is doing worse than it has ever done before, and the investor class and the wealthy are doing better because of cheap money from the Fed.

This is the worst part. We had 1 1/2 percent GDP growth in the first quarter. If we slide back to recession you can't slide interest rates below zero. Where do we go if the economy slides back into recession? It has been the wrong thing to do. It is hurting the American economy.

Christie is doing a good job here of channeling the views of many Wall Street types who live in New Jersey and enjoy complaining about the Fed.

But the argument doesn't really make sense. You can believe the Fed is responsible for slow growth or you can believe the Fed is acting to boost Obama's approval ratings, but unless you think a bad economy benefits Obama, it can't be both.

A theory that might make sense would be to say that the Fed is so desperate to help Obama that it is overheating the economy and prompting dangerous inflation. Except right now inflation is super low. So it can't be that either.

Will you support Vox’s explanatory journalism?

Most news outlets make their money through advertising or subscriptions. But when it comes to what we’re trying to do at Vox, there are a couple of big issues with relying on ads and subscriptions to keep the lights on:

First, advertising dollars go up and down with the economy. We often only know a few months out what our advertising revenue will be, which makes it hard to plan ahead.

Second, we’re not in the subscriptions business. Vox is here to help everyone understand the complex issues shaping the world — not just the people who can afford to pay for a subscription. We believe that’s an important part of building a more equal society. And we can’t do that if we have a paywall.

So even though advertising is still our biggest source of revenue, we also seek grants and reader support. (And no matter how our work is funded, we have strict guidelines on editorial independence.)

If you also believe that everyone deserves access to trusted high-quality information, will you make a gift to Vox today? Any amount helps.

One-Time Monthly Annual

$5/month

$10/month

$25/month

$50/month

Other

$

Yes, I'll give $5/month

Yes, I'll give $5/month

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via