What do you think?
Rate this book
Limitless: The Federal Reserve Takes on a New Age of Crisis
This fascinating deep dive into one of the most powerful and least understood American institutions—the Federal Reserve—is “a riveting narrative...[and] an invaluable guide to the monetary policy debates of the last few years" (Liaquat Ahamed, Pulitzer Prize-winning author of Lords of Finance ).
“The best book on the Fed in our time and a model of financial writing.” – Kirkus
The marble halls of the Federal Reserve have always held secrets; for decades the Fed did the utmost to preserve its room to maneuver, operating behind the scenes as much as possible. Yet over the past two decades, this elite world of bankers and economists speaking a language that only monetary experts could understand has been forced to change its ways. Amid rising inequality, weakening global economic prospects, and a pandemic, the central bank has entered into a new era of transparency and activism that has changed its role in modern society in subtle but remarkable ways.
Limitless tells the inside story of this deeply impactful transformation, and what it means for ordinary Americans. Focusing on characters such as the Fed chairman Jerome Powell; the Vice Chair for Supervision Randal Quarles; Vice Chair Lael Brainard; the Minneapolis Fed president Neel Kashkari; and the long-ago Fed Chair Marriner S. Eccles—and driven by the rising tension between Main Street and Wall Street—this is a page-turning account of the modern Fed’s inner workings during a crucial inflection point in history.
“The best book on the Fed in our time and a model of financial writing.” – Kirkus
The marble halls of the Federal Reserve have always held secrets; for decades the Fed did the utmost to preserve its room to maneuver, operating behind the scenes as much as possible. Yet over the past two decades, this elite world of bankers and economists speaking a language that only monetary experts could understand has been forced to change its ways. Amid rising inequality, weakening global economic prospects, and a pandemic, the central bank has entered into a new era of transparency and activism that has changed its role in modern society in subtle but remarkable ways.
Limitless tells the inside story of this deeply impactful transformation, and what it means for ordinary Americans. Focusing on characters such as the Fed chairman Jerome Powell; the Vice Chair for Supervision Randal Quarles; Vice Chair Lael Brainard; the Minneapolis Fed president Neel Kashkari; and the long-ago Fed Chair Marriner S. Eccles—and driven by the rising tension between Main Street and Wall Street—this is a page-turning account of the modern Fed’s inner workings during a crucial inflection point in history.
384 pages, Hardcover
Published February 28, 2023
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews
March 2, 2023
In the introduction to Limitless Jeanna Smialek writes, “I should offer a word of warning before you get started. Many people who write about the Fed (a) suggest that its officials have saved the world, (b) suggest that they have ruined the world, or (c) suggest that they’re some sort of secret cult trying to take over the world. If that is what you’re looking for, this is not the book for you.”
She is too modest to add: “If you want a deeply reported book that combines history, economics and colorful stories about colorful personalities into a compulsively readable argument that the Fed’s power’s have greatly expanded over time, that this may have been necessary for the sake of the economy, but that it also necessitates greater transparency and scrutiny, then this is the book for you.”
If you are new to these issues you will learn a lot about the origins of the Fed, how its role evolved over time, and a spotlight especially on its response to COVID and the inflation that followed. Smialek is also focused on the way that the Fed has navigated the changing political and cultural context, including issues of race that rose to national prominence with the murder of George Floyd, climate change, and broadened notions of the employment mandate—all of which led to a situation in which “Fed officials often talk about ‘staying in their lane,’ but that lane has been expanding into an avenue.”
I’m not new to these issues but still learned a lot, both about the history, the present, some of the people that have made these changes, as well as a dilemmas and challenges of balancing a powerful and technocratic agency with desire for democratic oversight while avoiding politicization.
Of course the book is coming out while the story is still unfinished. The Fed has not brought down inflation. It has also still not had to grapple seriously with tensions in its mandate—the unemployment rate is still low while inflation is high and many still hold out hope for a soft landing that would obviate the need to choose between inflation and unemployment. We will have to see if any of this brings new limits back to way the Fed conducts itself or the mandate that Congress assigns to it.
For now, read Smialek’s excellent book—while we all anxiously await the sequel.
——————
Disclosure: I read and provided comments on much of an earlier draft of the book and after it was released I read/re-read the opening and closing chapters.
She is too modest to add: “If you want a deeply reported book that combines history, economics and colorful stories about colorful personalities into a compulsively readable argument that the Fed’s power’s have greatly expanded over time, that this may have been necessary for the sake of the economy, but that it also necessitates greater transparency and scrutiny, then this is the book for you.”
If you are new to these issues you will learn a lot about the origins of the Fed, how its role evolved over time, and a spotlight especially on its response to COVID and the inflation that followed. Smialek is also focused on the way that the Fed has navigated the changing political and cultural context, including issues of race that rose to national prominence with the murder of George Floyd, climate change, and broadened notions of the employment mandate—all of which led to a situation in which “Fed officials often talk about ‘staying in their lane,’ but that lane has been expanding into an avenue.”
I’m not new to these issues but still learned a lot, both about the history, the present, some of the people that have made these changes, as well as a dilemmas and challenges of balancing a powerful and technocratic agency with desire for democratic oversight while avoiding politicization.
Of course the book is coming out while the story is still unfinished. The Fed has not brought down inflation. It has also still not had to grapple seriously with tensions in its mandate—the unemployment rate is still low while inflation is high and many still hold out hope for a soft landing that would obviate the need to choose between inflation and unemployment. We will have to see if any of this brings new limits back to way the Fed conducts itself or the mandate that Congress assigns to it.
For now, read Smialek’s excellent book—while we all anxiously await the sequel.
——————
Disclosure: I read and provided comments on much of an earlier draft of the book and after it was released I read/re-read the opening and closing chapters.
July 15, 2023
I so rarely write reviews but wanted to wholeheartedly recommend this vivid portrayal of the Fed and its expansion of power in the modern era. As someone who worked at the Fed for a few years and with some of the folks named in the book, I still learned so much about key moments during the crisis and the viewpoints of different key players. The book alternates anecdotes with key regulatory and contextual details, turning what could’ve been a dry tome into a really fun reading experience. And bonus— she makes an effort to cite a wide array of truly brilliant macroeconomic scholars, including some junior folks who don’t often get due credit. Highly recommend!
February 28, 2023
i thought i knew what the federal reserve was before reading this book. this book actually taught me what monetary policy is and why we are now at an inflection point in where it goes further.
highly recommend to anyone wanting to learn about central banking.
super readable, makes Jay Powell an actual person instead of a finance twitter meme.
highly recommend to anyone wanting to learn about central banking.
super readable, makes Jay Powell an actual person instead of a finance twitter meme.
February 28, 2023
Amazing read. Makes a mundane topic super interesting. Everyone who is interested in current events should read this to better understand the forces that influence our economy everyday. This books takes you through the history of the Fed, the Fed's techincal powers and how that has shifted/evolved with socio-political factors over the centuries, and where this could go in the future.
Must read!
Must read!
Read
February 28, 2023“Limitless” is a must-read, whether you are normally interested in economics and finance or not.
Smialek has an incredible ability to convey complex economic concepts in simple and understandable language, which makes this book accessible to anyone, regardless of their background.
She demonstrates how the Fed's policies are affecting people's daily lives more than ever, from interest rates to inflation and beyond. She also provides a clear understanding of the growing impact of U.S. monetary policy on the global economy and its potential risks and benefits.
The book is well-researched, engaging, and informative, shining a light on one of the most powerful yet least understood institutions. I learned so much from this book and I can’t recommend it enough.
Smialek has an incredible ability to convey complex economic concepts in simple and understandable language, which makes this book accessible to anyone, regardless of their background.
She demonstrates how the Fed's policies are affecting people's daily lives more than ever, from interest rates to inflation and beyond. She also provides a clear understanding of the growing impact of U.S. monetary policy on the global economy and its potential risks and benefits.
The book is well-researched, engaging, and informative, shining a light on one of the most powerful yet least understood institutions. I learned so much from this book and I can’t recommend it enough.
July 26, 2023
Brief history of the Fed was included, but overall it was less about economics and more about the individuals in the federal reserve.
March 5, 2023
Jeanna Smialek’s Limitless neatly sums up both her employer the New York Times’ journalistic practice and all that is wrong with the broken legacy press. Smialek herself may be a young reporter, but her timidly detached prose reads remarkably like something from another time. As a work of reporting, this 400-page book offers nothing new beyond all the author’s many articles already published in the New York Times and cited here. Its economic commentary is banal, weakly and hesitantly presented so as to make no real argument at all, other than that the “Fed has fundamentally changed” over the years, an ongoing process which “came fully to bear in 2020” during the pandemic.
The point of her book seems even more to be just that the U.S. economic power players are “ordinary people” who are “uncommonly interesting”—backed up with glitz and glamour and “gossipy” details the author appears to sheepishly revel in, though interpolated into the narrative at the most awkward, even inappropriate moments. So for instance in the chapter (7, “March Madness”) that takes us into the thick of the early days of the coronavirus tragedy, we dart between a ticktock of momentous life-and-death events and sumptuous details about the fabulous lives of Jay Powell and Steven Mnuchin. In grand Times style, the front-and-center colorful details—the multi-million-dollar mansions, the fancypants social clubs belonged to, the Ivy League pedigrees, the movies one’s wife makes, the car one drives—presumably are meant to bring the narrative to life and characterize the players as “real” human beings. The author might claim, on the contrary, that these details are meant to show how out of touch with normal Americans these elite officials are. However, the timing is just off then, plus they are always presented glib and starry-eyed, approvingly, in the typical statusy Times style that caters to their rich, elite readership.
A main focus is indeed on the U.S. government’s coronavirus response, led by Jerome Powell—appointed by Donald Trump—at the Fed and Steven Mnuchin, Donald Trump’s Treasury secretary. One might expect some intelligent analysis, then, about how this all fits into the charged political context, about the singular and unignorable devastating fact of the past decade: the corrupt, mendacious presidency of Donald Trump and his deterioration of democratic norms. Yet, unbelievably, Donald Trump is a gigantic absence in this book, merely mentioned in passing—the Footnote President, in Smialek’s treatment. Trump just lurks in the background, conspicuously silenced in the narrative so that the dutifully “nonpartisan” Times reporter can avoid taking any political stance. For all Smialek’s frequent distinction between the “elected” (the legislative branch, credulously taking for granted it operates functionally democratically in the U.S., despite proof to the contrary) and the “unelected” (the Fed; bureaucrats), it is quite stunning how she willfully silences the (electoral-college-)elected Donald Trump’s role in politicizing the effects of a health tragedy and his role, or anti-role, in the federal government’s response. Instead, Steven Mnuchin is unproblematically presented as standing in for Trump, acting on his own volition as if he had been elected President Mnuchin by the American people. If indeed Mnuchin, and not Trump, was responsible for the administration’s response, that signals democratic dysfunction of the highest order and would have merited an entire book itself. In a world where the U.S. president was negligently, homicidally absent in an historic moment demanding leadership, engaged journalists contextualized this inadmissible fact, rather than slinkingly reacting to it, thus normalizing it.
To spectacular effect, Smialek implicitly describes a political system that is unrecognizable to any reasonable person living on planet Earth today. Most notable is her appallingly normalized depiction of the Republican Party, which she goes to great lengths to protect in inimitable New York Times style—most significantly in her silencing of Trump-as-President, but also in how every issue is framed via both-sidesing. The Republican Party Smialek describes here is one of wishful thinking, not one that is openly, explicitly adopting anti-democratic positions, suppressing the vote, and denying objective truths, but instead merely one player in a political game opposed on equal terms to all the other political factions. And so, also true to Times style, Smialek naively accepts Republicans’ words at face value, quoting propagandistic lies as one side of the story as if politicians’ stated intentions were always sincere. Her uncritical parroting of obviously biased political maneuvering by Steven Mnuchin, Mitch McConnell, Pat Toomey, and Randal Quarles are particularly embarrassing. Where she’s not credulously quoting Republican propaganda, she even goes as far as to invent a non-existent “moderate” right wing that supports Black Lives and sensible climate legislation.
Smialek has applied so fully the supposed “professional” norms of “objective,” “neutral,” “apolitical” modern U.S. journalism that she has successfully created a caricature of its irrelevance. This is where American journalism is in 2023: So careful are “reporters” to remove themselves from the story in the name of “objectivity” that they actually *distort* reality. The media critic Jay Rosen talks about “refuge seeking” rather than “truth seeking”—a concept indispensable for understanding press practices today. Rather than seeking the/a truth, reporters do all they can to seek refuge against any sort of criticism, merely acting as stenographer-conduits intermediating between the discourse of equal factions in the world. Refuge seeking has always been terrible journalistic practice, but our new anti-democratic and anti-truth age has now revealed this type of reporting for the dangerous anti-journalism it is. By seeking refuge against political criticism, now they’ve adopted the stance of being the most naive, most gullible people on the planet who can’t state the most basic observable facts for fear of criticism—thereby only opening themselves up to even worse criticism (such as this review).
The problem is not that Smialek is writing as a Republican or a Republican sympathizer; if she had just written a conservative book, then that would be that. The situation here is worse: It is that this reporter apparently actually believes that she is a disinterested, objective observer. Beyond outdated, the “viewless” newsgathering model is also at odds with inclusive hiring practices which take for granted that people with diverse backgrounds are valuable to an organization precisely because they may bring a unique way of seeing the world, informed by their own positionality. Trying to speak for everyone, you speak for no one. Credibility as a journalist comes from acknowledging your own positionality, not from denying it.
For an institution devoted to documenting the changing world, the New York Times remains hopelessly attached to the past, to its broken “objective” model that, in continuity, has never served it well; see, e.g., moral abandonment in covering Nazi atrocities, homophobia during the HIV/AIDS crisis, cheerleading the Iraq War, now its transphobic “just asking questions” front-page howlers, etc.—in other words, the New York Times always follows the consensus of the age, rather than leading morally. Jeanna Smialek’s book is an exemplar of the failed conventions of a legacy Establishment press which unjustifiably still wields enormous power and influence all over the world—even as these retrograde institutions and the individuals who make them up prove themselves to be ever more intellectually and morally irrelevant.
***
The full arsenal of antiquated journalism practices inculcated by Smialek’s employer is on display in Limitless: A focus on boring insidery details that matter to no one outside of the political press. An obsession with wealth and status, name-checking all the “very best” universities. Condescending to readers, assuming that they were born yesterday and have no knowledge of the most basic details about the world, nor any memory and therefore in need of constant reminders about the simplest Googleable facts. An all-encompassing binary epistemology that views everything through the lens of Left-Right politics (the brilliant social critic New York Times Pitchbot mocks this to hilarious effect in equating wine trends with “bad news for Joe Biden”)—particularly damaging to any attempt at astute economic analysis, because rather than intelligently analyzing macroeconomics the author inevitably reduces everything to the political binary. The reporting of people’s words without considering whether they are sincere, true or not—because words-said are the one truly knowable thing in the world, which is why the reactive legacy press really only reports “what people are saying” rather than actual news.
The author uncritically misuses and abuses journalese metaphors with no meaning at all: “shock waves that ricocheted through society”; “sent markets into a tailspin”; “stock indexes had closed in disarray”; “a public relations land mine”; “coax growth back from the abyss”; “animosity that had brimmed to the point of overflowing”; “things started to get messy”; “the beating heart of that debate”; “ripple of shock rushed through the Fed’s ranks”; the ever present “optics,” a vile journalese-ism that may more accurately mean “the way things appear to the journalists reporting them.”
A few closer readings follow.
Chapter 1
>>>On choosing Jerome Powell over Janet Yellen as Fed chair: “Whether Yellen’s appearance really weighed heavily on the president’s mind is hard to know. It is more clearly the case that Trump liked Yellen but felt from the outset that it would be better to have his own person in the job.”
In one sentence what Trump thought of Yellen is “hard to know” and then in the next Smialek tells us “clearly” what Trump thought—an absurdist analysis: here are the things we can’t know; here are the things we can. The opinion she settles on could only have been made by an individual who did not pay attention to the thousands of sexist and childish remarks or decisions made by Trump over the years. Instead, any observant person might assume that Yellen’s appearance and gender were precisely what swayed Trump.
Chapter 6
>>>“But lawmakers were struggling to reach standard agreements to keep the government funded, let alone pass meaningful legislation.”
The reason this occurred was due to Republican obstructionism. It’s presented as the journalist cliché of gridlock, ignoring that “gridlock” usually means minority rule by obstructionist Republicans.
>>>“Financial regulation was inherently somewhat partisan. Democrats would want to rein in banks to protect the little guy and squeeze financiers. Republicans would want to free them of their shackles so that they could pursue profits and fuel growth.”
Regulation is “somewhat” partisan? Then the author breathlessly repeats the caricatural views of what “each side” is. Republicans are for growth! Democrats are against it! This cliché could’ve been generated by AI.
>>>There’s quite a classic Times-y set piece in this chapter to profile Randal Quarles, who the author evidently admires and whose words she repeats uncritically, e.g., “arguing for regulation that was exactly strict enough, without being too strict”—now who wouldn’t agree with that!? In this passage we hear words (usually approvingly) like Columbia, Yale, Hamptons, Manhattan high life, exclusive ski resort, luxury hotel, swank hotel, etc.
>>>“While both men and women sometimes took heat for ambition, Brainard also faced overt sexism.”
Here the author both-sides sexism! Sexism exists and it is bad for women; sexism against men is not a thing, by definition. This ridiculous example shows how reflexively the author hedges and how unbold, unassertive the rhetoric is. In the framework of refuge-seeking, a concrete question to ask is: Who exactly are the people she is seeking refuge from who would criticize her for saying simply “this woman was the victim of sexism”? Actually in this chapter and others, the author several times questionably characterizes women and irrelevantly brings up wives, such as a tasteless “gossipy addition” tacked on right in the middle of the Covid tragedy (in Chapter 7).
>>>“To one side sat a near-libertarian lawyer who felt that a central bank should have stark limitations in a democratic and capitalistic society, and to the other a Democrat-aligned economist who thought the Fed had a responsibility to use policy more expansively to safeguard finance and support the economy. Powell existed in the space between.”
I read this now literal both-sidesing as clownish caricature, at odds with a nuanced critical analysis.
Chapter 7
>>>“It was not clear that elected politicians were going to respond quickly to the unfolding [coronavirus] crisis.”
Trump is just mentioned here in passing about a Tweet about his border wall, as if he were not the one single person who could have acted decisively on the coronavirus at each point. Instead, the blame falls on “elected politicians,” which assumes “both sides” and again, incredibly, removes all responsibility from Donald Trump.
>>>“A debt-wary and divided legislature failed to deliver when Congress and the White House... amid partisan bickering.”
Again, it was partisan bickering: gridlock unattributable to any particular actor, thus both sides are at fault. No mention of Trump’s leadership role here. In the same passage, the author quotes a lie by Trump about the pandemic, without calling it a lie but describing it as an indication the administration was starting to take the virus seriously.
Chapter 8
>>>“Whatever motivated it, regulatory inaction leading up to 2020 had again left the financial system with flawed defenses”
It is quite clear what motivated it and the responsibility was Republican obstruction. An economics reporter should be able to describe this more assertively.
Chapter 11
>>>On an anti-racist statement: “become the national consensus on the political left and often on the more moderate right.”
Who exactly are the individuals on the “more moderate right” who agree with this statement on institutional racism after the police murdered George Floyd? Even if such a minuscule fraction of people exist, why would the author focus on them, when almost all the right openly opposes anti-racism?
>>>In the discussion of the anti-mask movement, the author makes no mention that it all began with Trump—just as if it arose out of nowhere.
>>>“Politically charged though it might be, inequality had become such an enormous force shaping and defining America’s economy”
Not really sure what that opening qualification of “politically charged” means, but I’m pretty sure it has to do with some both-sidesing inequality!
>>>“While Fed policy seemed unlikely to be the main or only driver of wealth inequality, that was not to say that it played no role at all.”
This is so weakly worded as to amount to an anti-argument, a both-sides statement with no meaning at all. Meanwhile, the author misses the point about the insidiousness and all-pervasiveness of systemic racism.
Chapter 13
>>>“Senator Toomey, on the other hand, viewed the Democratic agenda with worried skepticism.” “Senator Toomey, true believer in a limited Fed” Etc. etc.
The author just credulously repeats Republican Senator Toomey’s stated positions, without a pause to question whether it is sincere or whether other ideological things may be motivating it. Many other examples like this are found in the book.
>>>“Whatever motivated Mnuchin’s maneuver, politics or practicality”
So careful are reporters to seek refuge against any critique at all, they adopt the most naive view of politics possible. This sort of pablum is a disgrace to journalism.
Chapter 14
>>>“even those [Republicans] who accepted the premise of man-created climate change often believed that regulations meant to curb climate risk needed to be carefully tailored to avoid unnecessarily burdening companies.”
This is another disgrace. Do Democrats not believe this? Again, if there is a tiny minority of Republicans who believe that, why is that the focus when the huge majority of Republicans are climate change denialists?
>>>“Powell was environmentally conscious himself”; he “drove a Tesla”
Chapter 15
>>>“Inflation had shown up just in time for—and partly because of—the new presidential administration and Congress in Washington. Joe Biden had taken office...”
It is actually hilariously impressive timing how inflation shows up in the book just in time for the start of Biden’s presidency! Despite much of the book being about extreme inflationary policies enacted in the Trump era to deal with coronavirus, it is only now, when Biden enters the White House, that the author brings inflation up. In a footnote, she is careful to both-sides inflation, noting that Trump supported the latest round of “large checks,” but without a word on his role in those extreme inflationary policies for the prior year.
>>>“Joe Biden had taken office in late January 2021, completing a dramatic transfer of power”
Classic New York Times understatement, this is also an unconscionable and negligent way to describe an attempted coup d’état by the previous president. Does the author not have a stake in her own country as a citizen? Is her professional reflex to both-sides and protect the Republican Party as an equal faction greater than her role as a citizen of a purportedly democratic system that a Republican president, Donald Trump, just tried to overthrow?
>>>On January 6: “underlining the deep divides festering in American society and the potential danger lurking within them”
January 6 is literally footnoted!!! Does a journalist have credibility if she blames “the deep divide” rather than hold particular bad actors accountable?
I will end the examples here. Many other similar ones may be found. A look at the acknowledgments is lastly instructive on white privilege as we learn of the author’s rapid trajectory from, as she states, knowing nothing about the Fed to becoming the Times’ Fed reporter and then landing a book deal with Knopf.
The scandal of this trivial book lies not so much in the naivety, the intellectual timidity, the political cowardice of relatively novice, if high-level, reporting. The scandal is that the well-meaning author is merely conforming to what is accepted as the journalistic norm among the most influential and prestigious media outlets in the English-speaking world.
The point of her book seems even more to be just that the U.S. economic power players are “ordinary people” who are “uncommonly interesting”—backed up with glitz and glamour and “gossipy” details the author appears to sheepishly revel in, though interpolated into the narrative at the most awkward, even inappropriate moments. So for instance in the chapter (7, “March Madness”) that takes us into the thick of the early days of the coronavirus tragedy, we dart between a ticktock of momentous life-and-death events and sumptuous details about the fabulous lives of Jay Powell and Steven Mnuchin. In grand Times style, the front-and-center colorful details—the multi-million-dollar mansions, the fancypants social clubs belonged to, the Ivy League pedigrees, the movies one’s wife makes, the car one drives—presumably are meant to bring the narrative to life and characterize the players as “real” human beings. The author might claim, on the contrary, that these details are meant to show how out of touch with normal Americans these elite officials are. However, the timing is just off then, plus they are always presented glib and starry-eyed, approvingly, in the typical statusy Times style that caters to their rich, elite readership.
A main focus is indeed on the U.S. government’s coronavirus response, led by Jerome Powell—appointed by Donald Trump—at the Fed and Steven Mnuchin, Donald Trump’s Treasury secretary. One might expect some intelligent analysis, then, about how this all fits into the charged political context, about the singular and unignorable devastating fact of the past decade: the corrupt, mendacious presidency of Donald Trump and his deterioration of democratic norms. Yet, unbelievably, Donald Trump is a gigantic absence in this book, merely mentioned in passing—the Footnote President, in Smialek’s treatment. Trump just lurks in the background, conspicuously silenced in the narrative so that the dutifully “nonpartisan” Times reporter can avoid taking any political stance. For all Smialek’s frequent distinction between the “elected” (the legislative branch, credulously taking for granted it operates functionally democratically in the U.S., despite proof to the contrary) and the “unelected” (the Fed; bureaucrats), it is quite stunning how she willfully silences the (electoral-college-)elected Donald Trump’s role in politicizing the effects of a health tragedy and his role, or anti-role, in the federal government’s response. Instead, Steven Mnuchin is unproblematically presented as standing in for Trump, acting on his own volition as if he had been elected President Mnuchin by the American people. If indeed Mnuchin, and not Trump, was responsible for the administration’s response, that signals democratic dysfunction of the highest order and would have merited an entire book itself. In a world where the U.S. president was negligently, homicidally absent in an historic moment demanding leadership, engaged journalists contextualized this inadmissible fact, rather than slinkingly reacting to it, thus normalizing it.
To spectacular effect, Smialek implicitly describes a political system that is unrecognizable to any reasonable person living on planet Earth today. Most notable is her appallingly normalized depiction of the Republican Party, which she goes to great lengths to protect in inimitable New York Times style—most significantly in her silencing of Trump-as-President, but also in how every issue is framed via both-sidesing. The Republican Party Smialek describes here is one of wishful thinking, not one that is openly, explicitly adopting anti-democratic positions, suppressing the vote, and denying objective truths, but instead merely one player in a political game opposed on equal terms to all the other political factions. And so, also true to Times style, Smialek naively accepts Republicans’ words at face value, quoting propagandistic lies as one side of the story as if politicians’ stated intentions were always sincere. Her uncritical parroting of obviously biased political maneuvering by Steven Mnuchin, Mitch McConnell, Pat Toomey, and Randal Quarles are particularly embarrassing. Where she’s not credulously quoting Republican propaganda, she even goes as far as to invent a non-existent “moderate” right wing that supports Black Lives and sensible climate legislation.
Smialek has applied so fully the supposed “professional” norms of “objective,” “neutral,” “apolitical” modern U.S. journalism that she has successfully created a caricature of its irrelevance. This is where American journalism is in 2023: So careful are “reporters” to remove themselves from the story in the name of “objectivity” that they actually *distort* reality. The media critic Jay Rosen talks about “refuge seeking” rather than “truth seeking”—a concept indispensable for understanding press practices today. Rather than seeking the/a truth, reporters do all they can to seek refuge against any sort of criticism, merely acting as stenographer-conduits intermediating between the discourse of equal factions in the world. Refuge seeking has always been terrible journalistic practice, but our new anti-democratic and anti-truth age has now revealed this type of reporting for the dangerous anti-journalism it is. By seeking refuge against political criticism, now they’ve adopted the stance of being the most naive, most gullible people on the planet who can’t state the most basic observable facts for fear of criticism—thereby only opening themselves up to even worse criticism (such as this review).
The problem is not that Smialek is writing as a Republican or a Republican sympathizer; if she had just written a conservative book, then that would be that. The situation here is worse: It is that this reporter apparently actually believes that she is a disinterested, objective observer. Beyond outdated, the “viewless” newsgathering model is also at odds with inclusive hiring practices which take for granted that people with diverse backgrounds are valuable to an organization precisely because they may bring a unique way of seeing the world, informed by their own positionality. Trying to speak for everyone, you speak for no one. Credibility as a journalist comes from acknowledging your own positionality, not from denying it.
For an institution devoted to documenting the changing world, the New York Times remains hopelessly attached to the past, to its broken “objective” model that, in continuity, has never served it well; see, e.g., moral abandonment in covering Nazi atrocities, homophobia during the HIV/AIDS crisis, cheerleading the Iraq War, now its transphobic “just asking questions” front-page howlers, etc.—in other words, the New York Times always follows the consensus of the age, rather than leading morally. Jeanna Smialek’s book is an exemplar of the failed conventions of a legacy Establishment press which unjustifiably still wields enormous power and influence all over the world—even as these retrograde institutions and the individuals who make them up prove themselves to be ever more intellectually and morally irrelevant.
***
The full arsenal of antiquated journalism practices inculcated by Smialek’s employer is on display in Limitless: A focus on boring insidery details that matter to no one outside of the political press. An obsession with wealth and status, name-checking all the “very best” universities. Condescending to readers, assuming that they were born yesterday and have no knowledge of the most basic details about the world, nor any memory and therefore in need of constant reminders about the simplest Googleable facts. An all-encompassing binary epistemology that views everything through the lens of Left-Right politics (the brilliant social critic New York Times Pitchbot mocks this to hilarious effect in equating wine trends with “bad news for Joe Biden”)—particularly damaging to any attempt at astute economic analysis, because rather than intelligently analyzing macroeconomics the author inevitably reduces everything to the political binary. The reporting of people’s words without considering whether they are sincere, true or not—because words-said are the one truly knowable thing in the world, which is why the reactive legacy press really only reports “what people are saying” rather than actual news.
The author uncritically misuses and abuses journalese metaphors with no meaning at all: “shock waves that ricocheted through society”; “sent markets into a tailspin”; “stock indexes had closed in disarray”; “a public relations land mine”; “coax growth back from the abyss”; “animosity that had brimmed to the point of overflowing”; “things started to get messy”; “the beating heart of that debate”; “ripple of shock rushed through the Fed’s ranks”; the ever present “optics,” a vile journalese-ism that may more accurately mean “the way things appear to the journalists reporting them.”
A few closer readings follow.
Chapter 1
>>>On choosing Jerome Powell over Janet Yellen as Fed chair: “Whether Yellen’s appearance really weighed heavily on the president’s mind is hard to know. It is more clearly the case that Trump liked Yellen but felt from the outset that it would be better to have his own person in the job.”
In one sentence what Trump thought of Yellen is “hard to know” and then in the next Smialek tells us “clearly” what Trump thought—an absurdist analysis: here are the things we can’t know; here are the things we can. The opinion she settles on could only have been made by an individual who did not pay attention to the thousands of sexist and childish remarks or decisions made by Trump over the years. Instead, any observant person might assume that Yellen’s appearance and gender were precisely what swayed Trump.
Chapter 6
>>>“But lawmakers were struggling to reach standard agreements to keep the government funded, let alone pass meaningful legislation.”
The reason this occurred was due to Republican obstructionism. It’s presented as the journalist cliché of gridlock, ignoring that “gridlock” usually means minority rule by obstructionist Republicans.
>>>“Financial regulation was inherently somewhat partisan. Democrats would want to rein in banks to protect the little guy and squeeze financiers. Republicans would want to free them of their shackles so that they could pursue profits and fuel growth.”
Regulation is “somewhat” partisan? Then the author breathlessly repeats the caricatural views of what “each side” is. Republicans are for growth! Democrats are against it! This cliché could’ve been generated by AI.
>>>There’s quite a classic Times-y set piece in this chapter to profile Randal Quarles, who the author evidently admires and whose words she repeats uncritically, e.g., “arguing for regulation that was exactly strict enough, without being too strict”—now who wouldn’t agree with that!? In this passage we hear words (usually approvingly) like Columbia, Yale, Hamptons, Manhattan high life, exclusive ski resort, luxury hotel, swank hotel, etc.
>>>“While both men and women sometimes took heat for ambition, Brainard also faced overt sexism.”
Here the author both-sides sexism! Sexism exists and it is bad for women; sexism against men is not a thing, by definition. This ridiculous example shows how reflexively the author hedges and how unbold, unassertive the rhetoric is. In the framework of refuge-seeking, a concrete question to ask is: Who exactly are the people she is seeking refuge from who would criticize her for saying simply “this woman was the victim of sexism”? Actually in this chapter and others, the author several times questionably characterizes women and irrelevantly brings up wives, such as a tasteless “gossipy addition” tacked on right in the middle of the Covid tragedy (in Chapter 7).
>>>“To one side sat a near-libertarian lawyer who felt that a central bank should have stark limitations in a democratic and capitalistic society, and to the other a Democrat-aligned economist who thought the Fed had a responsibility to use policy more expansively to safeguard finance and support the economy. Powell existed in the space between.”
I read this now literal both-sidesing as clownish caricature, at odds with a nuanced critical analysis.
Chapter 7
>>>“It was not clear that elected politicians were going to respond quickly to the unfolding [coronavirus] crisis.”
Trump is just mentioned here in passing about a Tweet about his border wall, as if he were not the one single person who could have acted decisively on the coronavirus at each point. Instead, the blame falls on “elected politicians,” which assumes “both sides” and again, incredibly, removes all responsibility from Donald Trump.
>>>“A debt-wary and divided legislature failed to deliver when Congress and the White House... amid partisan bickering.”
Again, it was partisan bickering: gridlock unattributable to any particular actor, thus both sides are at fault. No mention of Trump’s leadership role here. In the same passage, the author quotes a lie by Trump about the pandemic, without calling it a lie but describing it as an indication the administration was starting to take the virus seriously.
Chapter 8
>>>“Whatever motivated it, regulatory inaction leading up to 2020 had again left the financial system with flawed defenses”
It is quite clear what motivated it and the responsibility was Republican obstruction. An economics reporter should be able to describe this more assertively.
Chapter 11
>>>On an anti-racist statement: “become the national consensus on the political left and often on the more moderate right.”
Who exactly are the individuals on the “more moderate right” who agree with this statement on institutional racism after the police murdered George Floyd? Even if such a minuscule fraction of people exist, why would the author focus on them, when almost all the right openly opposes anti-racism?
>>>In the discussion of the anti-mask movement, the author makes no mention that it all began with Trump—just as if it arose out of nowhere.
>>>“Politically charged though it might be, inequality had become such an enormous force shaping and defining America’s economy”
Not really sure what that opening qualification of “politically charged” means, but I’m pretty sure it has to do with some both-sidesing inequality!
>>>“While Fed policy seemed unlikely to be the main or only driver of wealth inequality, that was not to say that it played no role at all.”
This is so weakly worded as to amount to an anti-argument, a both-sides statement with no meaning at all. Meanwhile, the author misses the point about the insidiousness and all-pervasiveness of systemic racism.
Chapter 13
>>>“Senator Toomey, on the other hand, viewed the Democratic agenda with worried skepticism.” “Senator Toomey, true believer in a limited Fed” Etc. etc.
The author just credulously repeats Republican Senator Toomey’s stated positions, without a pause to question whether it is sincere or whether other ideological things may be motivating it. Many other examples like this are found in the book.
>>>“Whatever motivated Mnuchin’s maneuver, politics or practicality”
So careful are reporters to seek refuge against any critique at all, they adopt the most naive view of politics possible. This sort of pablum is a disgrace to journalism.
Chapter 14
>>>“even those [Republicans] who accepted the premise of man-created climate change often believed that regulations meant to curb climate risk needed to be carefully tailored to avoid unnecessarily burdening companies.”
This is another disgrace. Do Democrats not believe this? Again, if there is a tiny minority of Republicans who believe that, why is that the focus when the huge majority of Republicans are climate change denialists?
>>>“Powell was environmentally conscious himself”; he “drove a Tesla”
Chapter 15
>>>“Inflation had shown up just in time for—and partly because of—the new presidential administration and Congress in Washington. Joe Biden had taken office...”
It is actually hilariously impressive timing how inflation shows up in the book just in time for the start of Biden’s presidency! Despite much of the book being about extreme inflationary policies enacted in the Trump era to deal with coronavirus, it is only now, when Biden enters the White House, that the author brings inflation up. In a footnote, she is careful to both-sides inflation, noting that Trump supported the latest round of “large checks,” but without a word on his role in those extreme inflationary policies for the prior year.
>>>“Joe Biden had taken office in late January 2021, completing a dramatic transfer of power”
Classic New York Times understatement, this is also an unconscionable and negligent way to describe an attempted coup d’état by the previous president. Does the author not have a stake in her own country as a citizen? Is her professional reflex to both-sides and protect the Republican Party as an equal faction greater than her role as a citizen of a purportedly democratic system that a Republican president, Donald Trump, just tried to overthrow?
>>>On January 6: “underlining the deep divides festering in American society and the potential danger lurking within them”
January 6 is literally footnoted!!! Does a journalist have credibility if she blames “the deep divide” rather than hold particular bad actors accountable?
I will end the examples here. Many other similar ones may be found. A look at the acknowledgments is lastly instructive on white privilege as we learn of the author’s rapid trajectory from, as she states, knowing nothing about the Fed to becoming the Times’ Fed reporter and then landing a book deal with Knopf.
The scandal of this trivial book lies not so much in the naivety, the intellectual timidity, the political cowardice of relatively novice, if high-level, reporting. The scandal is that the well-meaning author is merely conforming to what is accepted as the journalistic norm among the most influential and prestigious media outlets in the English-speaking world.
August 8, 2024
Nerd alert read but very solid - learned a lot and Smialek (go heels) has a knack for making the most esoteric and boring economic policy discussions engaging. Cool way to learn about the Fed’s history and ironic to read it this week w all the mkts and cuts-related headlines
April 6, 2024
I've rlly enjoyed books like King of Capital and More Money than God so I've found that finance books by journalists are a fun read, as they combine my favourite topic with the fun narrative and gossip ability of journalists. So when I saw this one - a book about the Fed with the aforementioned gossip style, I had to pounce. The recency of economic events covered in Limitless makes it a very relevant and vivid read.
The central thesis of this book is an increasingly important question that the Fed has to ask itself - what does it mean to be a 21st century central bank? In a world that's moving increasingly left, stances that were centrist just a decade ago are now on the right. Why on earth is the Fed - with a clear, simple dual mandate of low inflation and unemployment - dabbling in conversations of inequality, climate change, diversity and inclusion etc? Granted, inequality is a branch within economics itself, but dipping its toes in the waters of social change is likely going to be the opening of the Pandora's box. Are we confusing movement with progress? Who gets to be the arbiter of these issues? Why is a technocratic institution which used to focus on limited economic issues now expected to extend its outreach to limitless social issues, as if monetary policy can solve all these problems?
In my humble view, we don't need another herald of justice - society already has its fair share of warriors, and that's what's the government is set up to do. Simple economics - another SJW in the system has low marginal utility. The Fed needs to maintain its institutional neutrality, because toeing out of that mandate is a slippery slope - like why was Harvard so fiercely condemned over its Israel-Palestine conduct, when it was simply an educational institution? Because once Harvard started sticking its nose in issues where it didn't belong, society increasingly expected Harvard to have an opinion on EVERYTHING, even in issues where it's irrelevant to have Harvard's take on. Furthermore, although Harvard's collective academics are experts in almost every issue under the sun, as an institutional body, Harvard is not an expert on every conflict, war, ideology, politically divisive debate that emerges over time, and thus its comments on every such issue cannot always be appropriate. The same logic applies to the Fed - it is an expert on monetary policy and macroeconomics, not on DEI or climate change.
We need a neutral institution to MAKE THE CHOICES THAT NO ONE ELSE CAN. In my view, the Fed is the economy's dark knight - it's a silent guardian, a watchful protector, and it can make the difficult decisions that others, either due to their intellectual or political reputation and baggage, cannot or will not do. Sometimes, the economy deserves Batman, not Harvey Dent. This is how we at least attempt to fight the time-inconsistency problem. Every agent specialises in their comparative advantage - the Fed specialises in monetary policy only, while the central government specialises in politics. It's that simple, really. Economics broke out of philosophy for a reason, but now, it's risking getting lumped back into philosophy and politics all over again.
It was pretty shitty how the outburst of Covid-era inflation, and with it, the mistaken assumption (in hindsight) of transitory inflation was only hastily shoved into a final chapter.
The central thesis of this book is an increasingly important question that the Fed has to ask itself - what does it mean to be a 21st century central bank? In a world that's moving increasingly left, stances that were centrist just a decade ago are now on the right. Why on earth is the Fed - with a clear, simple dual mandate of low inflation and unemployment - dabbling in conversations of inequality, climate change, diversity and inclusion etc? Granted, inequality is a branch within economics itself, but dipping its toes in the waters of social change is likely going to be the opening of the Pandora's box. Are we confusing movement with progress? Who gets to be the arbiter of these issues? Why is a technocratic institution which used to focus on limited economic issues now expected to extend its outreach to limitless social issues, as if monetary policy can solve all these problems?
In my humble view, we don't need another herald of justice - society already has its fair share of warriors, and that's what's the government is set up to do. Simple economics - another SJW in the system has low marginal utility. The Fed needs to maintain its institutional neutrality, because toeing out of that mandate is a slippery slope - like why was Harvard so fiercely condemned over its Israel-Palestine conduct, when it was simply an educational institution? Because once Harvard started sticking its nose in issues where it didn't belong, society increasingly expected Harvard to have an opinion on EVERYTHING, even in issues where it's irrelevant to have Harvard's take on. Furthermore, although Harvard's collective academics are experts in almost every issue under the sun, as an institutional body, Harvard is not an expert on every conflict, war, ideology, politically divisive debate that emerges over time, and thus its comments on every such issue cannot always be appropriate. The same logic applies to the Fed - it is an expert on monetary policy and macroeconomics, not on DEI or climate change.
We need a neutral institution to MAKE THE CHOICES THAT NO ONE ELSE CAN. In my view, the Fed is the economy's dark knight - it's a silent guardian, a watchful protector, and it can make the difficult decisions that others, either due to their intellectual or political reputation and baggage, cannot or will not do. Sometimes, the economy deserves Batman, not Harvey Dent. This is how we at least attempt to fight the time-inconsistency problem. Every agent specialises in their comparative advantage - the Fed specialises in monetary policy only, while the central government specialises in politics. It's that simple, really. Economics broke out of philosophy for a reason, but now, it's risking getting lumped back into philosophy and politics all over again.
It was pretty shitty how the outburst of Covid-era inflation, and with it, the mistaken assumption (in hindsight) of transitory inflation was only hastily shoved into a final chapter.
March 27, 2023
This is a nice, well-researched play-by-play on covid; it's the second I've read in this genre (the first was by Nick Timiraos). Like most play-by-play books (see also the 2008 crisis books), it duplicates a lot of effort by providing some boilerplate Fed history (though this one has some interesting Eccles anecdotes). And this one does more than usual boilerplate about inequality, diversity among government leaders, etc. So, be prepared for that.
But the meat of the book itself is pretty good; clearly the author had good sources. Here we see, in particular, extra focus on Brainard, Andreas Lehnert (the head of the Fed's financial stability section who led a lot of the program development), and Quarles. I found this content quite interesting and useful.
In the current moment, econ/finance journalists are far too influenced by their curated twitter feeds. I think this might explain why the author chose to tell the story partly by frequently checking in with Neel Kashkari, whose role in the covid financial crisis was relatively limited but who is immensely popular in a certain corner of econ/finance twitter where a lot of young journalists hang out. The Kashkari material didn't add value, and in fact it felt distracting and out of place since it had little substantive content. The twitter theory could also explain why the author claims that mainstream economists generally agreed with Larry Summers' pre-pandemic "secular stagnation" stories, when in fact that idea gained little traction among academic macroeconomists despite its popularity on twitter.
On a related note, a lot of young nontechnical journalists heavily overuse the word "nerdy," and this author is no different. To these folks, anything involving data or law in any way counts as "nerdy." It's a sort of form of flattery for their readers. I think anyone actually involved in even modestly technical work finds it sort of juvenile and annoying. There's no need to put footnotes in a popular press book claiming to have a "nerdy" explanation for something that isn't actually very detailed or technical. So I think between that and my twitter point above, you can get a sense for the sort of vibe you'll encounter in this book. It's fine!
All of this said, it is a good book, and the author is a good person to have written it. It will certainly be one of the canonical play-by-play books of the covid episode.
But the meat of the book itself is pretty good; clearly the author had good sources. Here we see, in particular, extra focus on Brainard, Andreas Lehnert (the head of the Fed's financial stability section who led a lot of the program development), and Quarles. I found this content quite interesting and useful.
In the current moment, econ/finance journalists are far too influenced by their curated twitter feeds. I think this might explain why the author chose to tell the story partly by frequently checking in with Neel Kashkari, whose role in the covid financial crisis was relatively limited but who is immensely popular in a certain corner of econ/finance twitter where a lot of young journalists hang out. The Kashkari material didn't add value, and in fact it felt distracting and out of place since it had little substantive content. The twitter theory could also explain why the author claims that mainstream economists generally agreed with Larry Summers' pre-pandemic "secular stagnation" stories, when in fact that idea gained little traction among academic macroeconomists despite its popularity on twitter.
On a related note, a lot of young nontechnical journalists heavily overuse the word "nerdy," and this author is no different. To these folks, anything involving data or law in any way counts as "nerdy." It's a sort of form of flattery for their readers. I think anyone actually involved in even modestly technical work finds it sort of juvenile and annoying. There's no need to put footnotes in a popular press book claiming to have a "nerdy" explanation for something that isn't actually very detailed or technical. So I think between that and my twitter point above, you can get a sense for the sort of vibe you'll encounter in this book. It's fine!
All of this said, it is a good book, and the author is a good person to have written it. It will certainly be one of the canonical play-by-play books of the covid episode.
March 25, 2023
It's not a stretch to say Federal Reserve policy almost singlehandedly explains everything about the previous decade. The Fed continues to shape our economic reality as the most powerful financial institution in the world that few can say they understand.
Limitless covers the history of the Federal Reserve and reports in great detail on its response to the economic crisis induced by the pandemic. Smialek makes learning about the evolution of central banking policy extremely accessible, even fun. The book humanizes the Fed and the policymakers in its orbit: Jerome Powell as an Allbirds-wearing Tesla driver strumming a Barenaked Ladies cover at the Fed Christmas party; Marriner Eccles as a real-life George Bailey talking down a run on his family bank long before he became the father of the modern Fed; Steven Mnuchin as an unexpected hero of the pandemic crisis response who quarterbacked the conjuring of trillions to hold up the economy, only to throw away his accumulated goodwill on his way out the door.
It's a recurring theme that in the absence of willingness from a dysfunctional government to enact fiscal policy, the Fed has to step in with its blunt instruments of monetary policy. Smialek gets you thinking about questions like Fed independence from partisan influence and the place that an unelected body of elite technocrats with the power to printed unlimited amounts of money has in a tumultuous society and economic order that hinges on its every move.
I watched PBS Frontline's Age of Easy Money documentary alongside reading this book, as it picks up from where Limitless left off having been sent for publication well before the events of SVB's collapse.
Limitless covers the history of the Federal Reserve and reports in great detail on its response to the economic crisis induced by the pandemic. Smialek makes learning about the evolution of central banking policy extremely accessible, even fun. The book humanizes the Fed and the policymakers in its orbit: Jerome Powell as an Allbirds-wearing Tesla driver strumming a Barenaked Ladies cover at the Fed Christmas party; Marriner Eccles as a real-life George Bailey talking down a run on his family bank long before he became the father of the modern Fed; Steven Mnuchin as an unexpected hero of the pandemic crisis response who quarterbacked the conjuring of trillions to hold up the economy, only to throw away his accumulated goodwill on his way out the door.
It's a recurring theme that in the absence of willingness from a dysfunctional government to enact fiscal policy, the Fed has to step in with its blunt instruments of monetary policy. Smialek gets you thinking about questions like Fed independence from partisan influence and the place that an unelected body of elite technocrats with the power to printed unlimited amounts of money has in a tumultuous society and economic order that hinges on its every move.
I watched PBS Frontline's Age of Easy Money documentary alongside reading this book, as it picks up from where Limitless left off having been sent for publication well before the events of SVB's collapse.
December 25, 2023
A Thorough but Dry Analysis of an Important Institution
I found parts of this book to be very readable and informative, particularly the more recent history from the Great Recession in 2008 and Covid in 2019 and on to the present day; while the older events, while no doubt important, were harder going (at least for me). Fortunately, the author spends more time on recent events and their potential implication for the economy going forward. Given a dysfunctional and an oxymoronic legislative branch, the Fed is assuming an ever more critical role in using monetary policy to achieve political objectives, while still retaining its independence. That's a lot of balls to keep in the air - Jerome Powell is definitely earning his (relatively) meagre salary!
The author does a fine job of analyzing the inflationary ramifications of Covid as well as the misstatements of the political class as to how long inflation would last. It has not been as transitory as they would have had us believe. She also takes some time to discuss the rise of cryptocurrency and the lower risk it poses to the US than to other smaller economies.
The author spends some time explaining the administrative and organizational set up of the organization and the 12 regional reserve banks. It became clearer to me how important these regional banks are in gathering economic feedback from around the country to help the Federal Reserve better set policy. While these details do not result in page-turning excitement, they help round out the story and are important to include.
Overall, I am better informed for having read this book but I need to be in the mood to learn its lessons.
I found parts of this book to be very readable and informative, particularly the more recent history from the Great Recession in 2008 and Covid in 2019 and on to the present day; while the older events, while no doubt important, were harder going (at least for me). Fortunately, the author spends more time on recent events and their potential implication for the economy going forward. Given a dysfunctional and an oxymoronic legislative branch, the Fed is assuming an ever more critical role in using monetary policy to achieve political objectives, while still retaining its independence. That's a lot of balls to keep in the air - Jerome Powell is definitely earning his (relatively) meagre salary!
The author does a fine job of analyzing the inflationary ramifications of Covid as well as the misstatements of the political class as to how long inflation would last. It has not been as transitory as they would have had us believe. She also takes some time to discuss the rise of cryptocurrency and the lower risk it poses to the US than to other smaller economies.
The author spends some time explaining the administrative and organizational set up of the organization and the 12 regional reserve banks. It became clearer to me how important these regional banks are in gathering economic feedback from around the country to help the Federal Reserve better set policy. While these details do not result in page-turning excitement, they help round out the story and are important to include.
Overall, I am better informed for having read this book but I need to be in the mood to learn its lessons.
April 24, 2023
Jeanna Smialek’s “Limitless” is a plainly spoken account of the Federal Reserve’s metamorphosis during the last several decades. Smialek, the New York Times’ Federal Reserve and Economics reporter, examines how the recent economic crises of 2008 and 2020 have nudged the central bank into a much scrutinized epoch of “intense soul-searching” brought on by its own overconfidence in its abilities to address systemic issues beyond the scope of its dual mandate, including financing state and local governments, cryptocurrency regulation, and advancing decarbonization. Smialek reveals how the Fed acted swiftly and unprecedentedly to open the credit floodgates during the pandemic-induced economic malaise, showing how the response was coordinated from the top (Fed Chair Powell) downwards (to Vice Chairs, Boards of Governors, and heads of the regional banks). While Smialek’s reporting mostly rolls up the preexisting work from her Times’ columns (and thus provides no new context born of stakeholder interviews or in-the-room insights), the coverage of the Covid crises, as well as her historical review of the Fed’s growing toolbox of monetary and financial solutions, is broad and generally accessible to the uninitiated reader. For those seeking to discover a more technical analysis of the scope and legality of the Fed’s growing powers, or an exhaustively sourced blow-by-blow thriller of back room deliberations, this book will most likely fail to satiate.
September 4, 2023
It's better and more readable than expected. The book's opening section contains a brief history of The Fed, and then gets into the heart of the material: how The Fed responded to the 2020 pandemic. It greatly increased its powers to meet the demands of the time, with Powell playing a key role handling the crisis while also trying to maintain The Fed's tradition of Above Politics presence. While the immediate crisis was resolved, there were lingering after affects, such as the return of inflation as an economic menace. In the background, and more potentially troubling, is an erosion of The Fed's existance as an institution above politics. Even before the pandemic, Trump wanted to put a synophant on The Fed's board, and he very nearly got such a person put on in the final days of his administration (stopped only by Sen. Grassley coming down with COVID just before the vote). Also, politicians increasingly use The Fed as a way to get their policy preferences met. After all, since The Fed plays such a vital role in the economy, and since there's no real clear stark line between economic factors and other factors in real life, why not use The Fed to address other issues? The idea of The Fed as an openly partisan institution using its powers for purely political ends is a troubling one.
A good book, though the pacing was a big off, as different parts of the book often weren't on the same wavelength as each other.
A good book, though the pacing was a big off, as different parts of the book often weren't on the same wavelength as each other.
August 14, 2023
What you get in this book:
A) Good reporting of the key events and the play by play of the Fed's protracted response to the 2020 pandemic, B) A decent summary of the Fed's foundation (only ~20% of the book).
The facts, dates, events, people referenced, is quite useful for people who are interested in the Fed and have no knowledge or just a cursory knowledge of its foundation and function. Also, since it's written by a reporter it reads like a long NYT or Bloomberg piece and any deeper thinking or analysis is rare. One example, the book relies heavily on concluding many of the Fed's flaws stem from employing too many "white men". Statements like this are so overused in media in recent years that it's at least lazy and likely anti-intellectual as it discourages any deeper analysis or thinking. Many potential readers interested in the Fed are probably intelligent enough to understand that simply having less white men will not yield some magical positive transformation of any institution, much less a complicated institution like the Fed.
Lastly, the melodramatic voice in the audio version is wonderfully ominous.
A) Good reporting of the key events and the play by play of the Fed's protracted response to the 2020 pandemic, B) A decent summary of the Fed's foundation (only ~20% of the book).
The facts, dates, events, people referenced, is quite useful for people who are interested in the Fed and have no knowledge or just a cursory knowledge of its foundation and function. Also, since it's written by a reporter it reads like a long NYT or Bloomberg piece and any deeper thinking or analysis is rare. One example, the book relies heavily on concluding many of the Fed's flaws stem from employing too many "white men". Statements like this are so overused in media in recent years that it's at least lazy and likely anti-intellectual as it discourages any deeper analysis or thinking. Many potential readers interested in the Fed are probably intelligent enough to understand that simply having less white men will not yield some magical positive transformation of any institution, much less a complicated institution like the Fed.
Lastly, the melodramatic voice in the audio version is wonderfully ominous.
July 2, 2023
Jeanna Smialek takes us back to the 2008 Financial Crisis (when the Fed under Ben Bernanke had to “break the glass” on emergency credit facilities to stave off a global systemic meltdown). Most of the book is set in the weeks and months of 2020 and 2021 as the Fed under Jay Powell fires off an even bigger monetary bazooka (cutting rates to 0, PPP and Mainstreet lending programs, purchase of Corporate and Muni bonds, and ongoing QE) to save the economy in the face of the Pandemic shutdowns.
Perhaps the most interesting topic is the Fed’s 2019 re-assessment of its commitment to full employment (at that time, against a backdrop of several years of inflation undershooting the Fed’s target). Powell indicates a willingness to see inflation pick up some before they’ll raise rates so that more people can get pulled into the labor market. That new framework would immediately be challenged by the inflation that came on strong in 2021.
Other things which get some deliberation: the Fed on crypto, the fed on climate change, the fed on George Floyd and racial equity.
Perhaps the most interesting topic is the Fed’s 2019 re-assessment of its commitment to full employment (at that time, against a backdrop of several years of inflation undershooting the Fed’s target). Powell indicates a willingness to see inflation pick up some before they’ll raise rates so that more people can get pulled into the labor market. That new framework would immediately be challenged by the inflation that came on strong in 2021.
Other things which get some deliberation: the Fed on crypto, the fed on climate change, the fed on George Floyd and racial equity.
February 21, 2024
I have three hot takes:
1) Smialek has the juice. Best working fed reporter? Watch the throne Timiroas
2) The Mnuchin Face Turn, heel turn, Saudi-PIF-heel turn is very amusing to me. And Louise Linton being in and around one of the most tumultuous moments in modern monetary history? Too good.
3) I spent the first couple months of the pandemic coping via hedonistic excess, so I don't think I really tracked just how fucked the treasury markets got. I remember hearing when the fed announced they were going to buy commercial paper and thinking that was wild; but it was only in revisiting March 2020 in this book did I get a really good feel for just how close everything got to armageddon.
Also, I wonder about if the two or three preceding economic crises leading into the pandemic being mostly precipitated fiscal/monetary factors affected how policy makers approached such a tactile issue like a pandemic.
1) Smialek has the juice. Best working fed reporter? Watch the throne Timiroas
2) The Mnuchin Face Turn, heel turn, Saudi-PIF-heel turn is very amusing to me. And Louise Linton being in and around one of the most tumultuous moments in modern monetary history? Too good.
3) I spent the first couple months of the pandemic coping via hedonistic excess, so I don't think I really tracked just how fucked the treasury markets got. I remember hearing when the fed announced they were going to buy commercial paper and thinking that was wild; but it was only in revisiting March 2020 in this book did I get a really good feel for just how close everything got to armageddon.
Also, I wonder about if the two or three preceding economic crises leading into the pandemic being mostly precipitated fiscal/monetary factors affected how policy makers approached such a tactile issue like a pandemic.
June 21, 2024
I picked up this book after listening to the author's weekly interviews on "Marketplace". I was hoping to learn about the Federal Reserve and be able to combat the mis-information that is readily available from all of the nay-sayers and conspiracy theorists who want to paint a picture of an oppressed populace.
Not only did I learn more about the Fed and how it operates, I was able to fill in the missing pieces of the past 4 years and how decisions were made.
I appreciated the way Ms. Smialek did not hold back on criticism but also was not overly harsh. Yes, some of the decisions of Fed Chair Powell look odd in retrospect. "Transitory" needs to be retired and it has in discourse.
Overall, I really enjoyed reading this book and will recommend it to anyone looking to read and learn facts rather than Op/Ed pieces meant to inflame political debates.
To the author, thank you for your work on this book.
Not only did I learn more about the Fed and how it operates, I was able to fill in the missing pieces of the past 4 years and how decisions were made.
I appreciated the way Ms. Smialek did not hold back on criticism but also was not overly harsh. Yes, some of the decisions of Fed Chair Powell look odd in retrospect. "Transitory" needs to be retired and it has in discourse.
Overall, I really enjoyed reading this book and will recommend it to anyone looking to read and learn facts rather than Op/Ed pieces meant to inflame political debates.
To the author, thank you for your work on this book.
April 21, 2023
Smailek reviews how the Fed was found and how its role evolved over time in response to economic and political challenges.
I like the chapter on the Fed’s early history (e.g., Glass, Strong, Eccles, Burns), suggesting how political forces defined the modern day Federal Reserve system. The detailed description of the Fed’s reaction during the pandemic is also informative — it’s interesting to learn how controversial policy decisions were made under immense political influence when the crisis was still unfolding. The book, however, focuses too much on highlighting how the Fed used its limitless balance sheet to save the economy (again) in 2020. I’d like to see more discussion on the longer term impacts of these intervention decisions, especially on its potentially fragile independence in the political power cycle.
I like the chapter on the Fed’s early history (e.g., Glass, Strong, Eccles, Burns), suggesting how political forces defined the modern day Federal Reserve system. The detailed description of the Fed’s reaction during the pandemic is also informative — it’s interesting to learn how controversial policy decisions were made under immense political influence when the crisis was still unfolding. The book, however, focuses too much on highlighting how the Fed used its limitless balance sheet to save the economy (again) in 2020. I’d like to see more discussion on the longer term impacts of these intervention decisions, especially on its potentially fragile independence in the political power cycle.
September 12, 2023
Even though for one who knows and understands the purpose and functions of the Fed, the book has purposely revealed how the Fed was involved in the monetary policy changes and actions prior the Covid-19 period to late 2021. The author has knitted the various persons and happenings as anecdotes in addition to how the Fed navigates its own decisions to help the economy face the impacts resulting during the rise and fall of the Covid infection in the US. It is obvious from what we see of the economy as it is now, from the perspective of high inflation and low unemployment, that the Fed still has to adapt its policy to steer the economy back to the desired path.
Like to mention another book "Crash Landing" by Liz Hoffman, which covers how some large corporations survived during the period from March to December of 2020 with help from the US government including the Fed.
Like to mention another book "Crash Landing" by Liz Hoffman, which covers how some large corporations survived during the period from March to December of 2020 with help from the US government including the Fed.
January 15, 2024
Finances are not my thing... I struggled through much of this book. But my favorite was learning about Marriner S. Eccles, chairman of the board in 1934 who set the foundations for the current federal reserve. He came from polygamist Mormon Utah, and while he grew up thinking everyone should just work and be self-reliant, he came to realize that the economy is more stable and everyone is off better when the government spends to keep the markets/economy stable. Interesting: his great-niece married someone who became involved in the federal reserve and was appointed by President Trump, I believe it was, who had the opposite mindset (government should spend less) and wouldn't you know... economy wasn't stable. I know I'm oversimplifying, like I said, financial things aren't my forte.
March 29, 2023
Enjoyable play-by-play of the Fed through the COVID-19 Pandemic. I've read a few books covering this era, and appreciated that I learned some new things from Limitless. This is clearly well-researched, and gave a nice perspective on what was happening behind the scenes. My only gripe is that I wish some of the themes later in the book, such as stable coins and the Fed focusing more on inclusive monetary policy, got more airtime. The last few chapters did not feel like they had as much meat as the early ones.
August 1, 2023
Though it can feel a little stilted and book report-y at times, "Limitless" is a very readable and compelling history of the Fed. Though the book tries to build towards the climax of the COVID-19 response, that's actually not the most compelling or informative part of the book. The book shines most brightly in chapters like that which attempt to address the allegation that the Fed's cheap money policies have driven wealth inequality (Smialek's conclusion is compelling and even-handed).
January 1, 2024
Great book about the Fed's response to COVID and the expansion and flexing of it's powers. Covers the history of the Fed and monetary policy, and also heavily focuses on the increasingly politicized nature of the Fed and the threat to its independence. Compares the Fed to the Supreme court, which I think is very apt.
August 19, 2024
Sheds light on a notoriously opaque institution in a really useful and accessible light. Limitless does an excellent job providing context for and insight into decisions made by the Powell Fed during a very challenging 2020-2022 period, offering helpful analysis for folks in the industry but in a wrapper that's accessible for the well-informed reader outside the finance field as well.
July 5, 2023
I’d highly recommend to anyone interested in understanding the Federal Reserve system.
Excellent history of the Fed and dug nicely into the details of the panics of 2008 and 2020.
The Fed is a critical necessity institution to a fully functioning United States.
Excellent history of the Fed and dug nicely into the details of the panics of 2008 and 2020.
The Fed is a critical necessity institution to a fully functioning United States.
August 4, 2023
There's so much information here. I'll need to re-read and try to absorb more on the repeat. The audiobook was good because it kept going even when I was confused - a good first pass.
Interesting topic on a very important actor in our current financial system.
Interesting topic on a very important actor in our current financial system.
March 30, 2023
Any time a podcast makes me think a book on economics sounds interesting, I'm gonna need someone to come up behind me and remind me I don't really like books on economics
May 24, 2023
Much of what the Fed does is still mysterious to me, but I'll get it one day.
June 4, 2023
Currently the best pandemic Fed book - nothing earth shaking but well researched and maintains journalistic integrity.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews