When the US president appointed Kevin Warsh to run the Federal Reserve, critics assumed he would be little more than Donald Trump's stooge. But Warsh is a deeper and more serious thinker than that. He was appointed as a critic of the way the Fed has been run, as someone who believes central banks need to be dragged into the 21st century and who argues that they should be doing more to promote economic growth.
This week, he appointed a panel of experts to help him work out how to deliver those outcomes. Among those experts are the venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, Walmart's former CEO Doug McMillon and Mervyn King, the former governor of the Bank of England.
Warsh has talked of “regime change” at the Fed, criticising it for keeping interest rates unnecessarily high, for keeping too many assets on its balance sheet and for collecting the wrong kind of data, especially on inflation. They are all valid points. Very few people could look honestly at the way central banks have operated since the 2008 financial crash and conclude that they had made every decision correctly.
Try 6 free issues of MoneyWeek today
Get unparalleled financial insight, analysis and expert opinion you can profit from.
Start your trial
Sign up for MoneyWeek’s free twice-daily newsletter.
Join more than 165,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with latest financial news, insights and expert analysis to help you understand what really matters when it comes to your finances.
Join more than 165,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with latest financial news, insights and expert analysis to help you understand what really matters when it comes to your finances.
We'll have to wait to see what happens. But when King has finished advising Warsh, perhaps he could bring some of his expertise back over to this side of the Atlantic. After all, the Bank of England needs reforming far more than the Fed does.
It has been a very bad decade for the Bank. There have been four major problems. To start with, it clearly lost control of inflation in the wake of the Covid pandemic. Inflation in Britain went all the way up to 11%, far higher than in most comparable countries. Why the Bank started to print more money when the supply of goods and services was so restricted is a mystery to anyone who has ever encountered even a GCSE economics textbook. It was a policy mistake for which the economy paid a high price.
Second, the Bank has presided over the steady decline of the City as a financial centre. True, leaving the EU didn't help. But the Bank could have been a lot bolder, taking the lead in new products such as cryptocurrencies, where London could have carved out new markets. London has been allowed to drop out of the top 20 globally for initial public offerings (IPOs), when it should be leading the world. In 2024, it was even overtaken by countries such as Oman and Malaysia.
Third, the Bank was at least partly responsible for the debacle of Liz Truss's mini-Budget. To be sure, the former prime minister hardly helped herself with an energy support package that cost way too much. But by allowing the liability-driven investment (LDI) scandal to blow up at the same time, the Bank worsened the collapse of sterling and the spike in bond yields that led to the demise of her short premiership. If Truss had had more time to push through the pro-growth elements of her agenda, the economy might be in slightly better shape now.
Finally, the economy has stagnated for the last decade, with productivity flat and real wages stalled, while the tax burden keeps rising. We can only pin part of the blame for that on the Bank. The government, by allowing welfare to run out of control, obsessing over net zero and allowing the planning system to prevent anything being built, is largely responsible. But the point of an independent central bank is to allow the economy to grow more quickly and that clearly has not happened.
The Bank of England is stuck in a rut
Some of the blame for the Bank's record can be pinned on successive governors. Mark Carney proved ridiculously overhyped and spent far too much time virtue-signalling over climate change and campaigning to reverse Brexit instead of doing the job he was so generously paid for. His successor Andrew Bailey is a civil-service plodder; mediocre, at best, with few fresh ideas and no appetite for reform. But the Bank also has institutional failings it hasn't addressed.
It is a sign of how America's political culture is so much more vibrant than Britain's that its central bank, even with a far more successful record than ours, is already examining ways of fixing itself. It is willing to learn from past mistakes and adapt where necessary.
By contrast, the Bank of England is stuck in a complacent, bureaucratic rut, insisting that everything is working well, even though that is clearly not the case. When he is finished with the Fed, King should be drafted in to tackle the Bank next – it is long overdue a radical overhaul.
This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.
