Federal Reserve

Subterms

    More stories

    • 175 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      To prevent more bank runs, the Fed should pause rate hikes | Robert Reich

      by

      The global financial system is facing a crisis of confidence. Which makes this week’s meeting of America’s central bankers critically important.None of the 12 members of the Federal Reserve Board’s Open Market Committee were elected to their posts. The vast majority of Americans don’t even know their names, except perhaps for the chairman, Jerome Powell.But as they try to decide whether to raise interest rates and, if so, by how much, America’s central bankers are deciding on the fate of the American – and much of the world’s – economy.And they’re sitting on the horns of a dilemma.On one horn is their fear that inflation will become entrenched in the economy, requiring more interest-rate hikes.On the other horn is their fear that if they continue to raise interest rates, smaller banks won’t have enough capital to meet their depositors’ needs.Higher rates could imperil more banks, especially those that used depositors’ money to purchase long-term bonds when interest rates were lower, as did Silicon Valley Bank.That means that raising interest rates could cause more runs on more banks. The financial system is already shaky.The two objectives – fighting inflation by raising rates, and avoiding a bank run – are in direct conflict. As the old song goes: “Something’s got to give.” What will it be?The sensible thing would be for the Fed to pause rate hikes long enough to let the financial system calm down. Besides, inflation is receding, albeit slowly. So there’s no reason to risk more financial tumult.But will the Fed see it that way?The Fed’s goal last week was to stabilize the banks enough so the Fed could raise interest rates this week without prompting more bank runs.The Fed bailed out uninsured depositors at two banks and signaled it would bail out others – in effect, expanding federal deposit insurance to cover every depositor at every bank.On top of this, 11 of America’s biggest banks agreed to contribute a total of $30bn to prop up First Republic, another smaller bank caught in the turmoil.This “show of support” (as it was billed, without irony) elicited a cheer from Jerome Powell and the treasury secretary, Janet Yellen, who called it “most welcome”. (Of course it was welcome. They probably organized it.)But investors and depositors are still worried.Other regional banks across the US have done just what Silicon Valley Bank did – buying long-dated bonds whose values have dropped as interest rates have risen. According to one study, as many as 190 more lenders could fail.On Monday, First Republic remained imperiled notwithstanding last week’s $30bn cash infusion. Trading in its shares on the New York Stock Exchange was automatically halted several times to prevent a freefall.Multiple recent downgrades of banks by ratings agencies like Moody’s haven’t helped.Reportedly, the Biden administration is even in talks with Warren Buffett, the chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, who invested billions to bolster Goldman Sachs during the 2008 financial crisis.Meanwhile, on the other side of the Atlantic, the European Central Bank last week raised interest rates by half a percentage point, asserting its commitment to fighting inflation.Yet the higher interest rates, combined with the failure of the two smaller American banks, have shaken banks in Europe.Just hours before the European Central Bank’s announcement, the banking giant Credit Suisse got a $54bn lifeline from Switzerland’s central bank.Yet not even this was enough to restore confidence. After a several days of negotiations involving regulators in Switzerland, the US and the UK, Switzerland’s biggest bank, UBS, agreed over the weekend to buy Credit Suisse in an emergency rescue deal.Finance ultimately depends on confidence – confidence that banks are sound and confidence that prices are under control.But ever since the near meltdown of Wall Street in 2008, followed by the milquetoast Dodd-Frank regulation of 2010 and the awful 2018 law exempting smaller banks, confidence in America’s banks has been shaky.November’s revelation that the crypto giant FTX was merely a house of cards has contributed to the fears. Where were the regulators?The revelation that Silicon Valley Bank didn’t have enough capital to pay its depositors added to the anxieties. Where were the regulators?Credit Suisse had been battered by years of mistakes and controversies. It is now on its third CEO in three years.Swiss banking regulations are notoriously lax, but American bankers have also pushed Europeans to relax their financial regulations, setting off a race to the bottom where the only winners are the bankers. As Lloyd Blankfein, then CEO of Goldman Sachs, warned Europeans: “Operations can be moved globally and capital can be accessed globally.”One advantage of being a bank (whether headquartered in the US or Switzerland) is that you get bailed out when you make dumb bets. Another is you can choose where around the world to make dumb bets.Which is why central banks and bank regulators around the world must not only pause interest rate hikes. They must also join together to set stricter bank regulations, to ensure that instead of a race to the bottom, it’s a race to protect the public.Banking is a confidence game. If the public loses confidence in banks, the financial system can’t function.In the panic of 1907, when major New York banks were heading toward bankruptcy, the secretary of the treasury, George B Cortelyou, deposited $35m of federal money in the banks. It was one of the earliest bank bailouts, designed to restore confidence.But it wasn’t enough. JP Morgan (the man who founded the bank) organized the nation’s leading financiers to devise a private bailout of the banks, analogous to last week’s $30bn deal.Confidence was restored, but the underlying weaknesses of the financial system remained. Those weaknesses finally became painfully and irrevocably apparent in the great crash of 1929.
      Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley, and the author of Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few and The Common Good. His new book, The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It, is out now. He is a Guardian US columnist. His newsletter is at robertreich.substack.com More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Elizabeth Warren says Fed chair ‘failed’ and calls for inquiry into bank collapse

      by

      Political fall-out in the US from the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank continued on Sunday when leftwing Senator Elizabeth Warren hit the morning talk shows and repeatedly called for an independent investigation into US bank failures and strongly criticised Federal Reserve finance officials.The progressive Democrat from Massachusetts, who has positioned herself as a consumer protection advocate and trenchant critic of the US banking system, told CBS’s Face the Nation that she did not have faith in San Francisco Federal Reserve president Mary Daly or Fed chairman Jerome Powell.“We need accountability for our regulators who clearly fell down on the job,” Warren said, adding that it “starts with” Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, who she said “was a dangerous man to have in this position”.“Remember the Federal Reserve Bank and Jerome Powell are ultimately responsible for the oversight and supervision of these banks. And they have made clear that they think their job is to lighten regulations on these banks. We’ve now seen the consequences,” Warren added.Asked if she had “faith” in Daly, under whose jurisdiction SVB fell, Warren said flatly: “No, I do not.”In the wake of the collapse of Silicon Valley and Signature banks, the one-time presidential candidate has in recent days launched a broad offensive on politicians on both the left and the right who supported Trump-era deregulation of smaller US banks.Warren sent a letter to the inspectors general of the US treasury department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp (FDIC) and the Federal Reserve, urging regulators to examine the recent management and oversight of the banks which collapsed earlier this month.Last week, Warren unveiled legislation that would repeal that law and raise “stress-tests” on “too big to fail” banks from $50bn to $250bn. On Sunday, Warren also argued for raising federal guarantees on consumers deposits above the current $250,000.“Is it $2m? Is it $5m? Is it $10m? Small businesses need to be able to count on getting their money to make payroll, to pay the utility bills,” Warren said. “These are not folks who can investigate the safety and soundness of their individual banks. That’s the job the regulators are supposed to do.”Warren broadened out her criticism on NBC’s Meet the Press, calling for a stop to interest rates rises when central bankers meet next week and claiming that Powell was pushed by Congress to support deregulation in 2018.“Look, my views on Jay Powell are well-known at this point. He has had two jobs. One is to deal with monetary policy. One is to deal with regulation. He has failed at both,”, she said.US prosecutors are investigating the SVB collapse, a source familiar with the matter told Reuters last week, after the $212bn bank collapsed when depositors rushed to withdraw their money.A blame-game erupted, with some arguing that the bank’s apparent lack of adequate risk management, combined with deregulation and a sharp interest rate rises, had created an accident waiting to happen.US banks have since lost around half a trillion dollars in value. On Friday, President Joe Biden promised that bank customers deposits are safe and the crisis had calmed down.In Warren’s letter published Sunday, the senator also called for executives of the failed banks to be held to account.“The bank’s executives, who took unnecessary risks or failed to hedge against entirely foreseeable threats, must be held accountable for these failures,” Warren said. “But this mismanagement was allowed to occur because of a series of failures by lawmakers and regulators.” More

    • 288 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Silicon Valley Bank said it was too small to need regulation. Now it’s ‘too big to fail’ | Rebecca Burns and Julia Rock

      by

      Silicon Valley Bank was supposedly the type of institution that would never need a government bailout – right until its backers spent three days on social media demanding one, and then promptly receiving it, after the bank’s spectacular collapse last week.Eight years ago, when the bank’s CEO, Greg Becker, personally pressed Congress to exempt SVB from post-2008 financial reform rules, he cited its “low risk profile” and role supporting “job-creating companies in the innovation economy”. Those companies include crypto outfits and venture capital firms typically opposed to the kind of government intervention they benefited from on Sunday, when regulators moved to guarantee SVB customers immediate access to their largely uninsured deposits.Fifteen years after the global financial crisis, the logic of “too big to fail” still prevails. The financial hardship of student debtors and underwater homeowners is a private problem – but losses sustained by titans of tech and finance are a matter of urgent public interest. Moral hazard for thee, but not for me.What’s more, SVB’s meteoric rise and fall serves as a reminder that many of the guardrails erected after the last crisis have since been dismantled – at the behest of banks like SVB, and with the help of lawmakers from both parties beholden to entrenched finance and tech lobbies.Before becoming the second-largest bank to fail in US history, SVB had transformed itself into a formidable influence machine – both in northern California, where it became the go-to lender for startups, and on Capitol Hill, where it spent close to a million dollars in a five-year period lobbying for the deregulatory policies that ultimately created the conditions for its downfall.“There are many ways to describe us,” SVB boasts on its website. “‘Bank’ is just one.”Indeed, SVB’s management appears to have neglected the basics of actual banking – the bank had no chief risk officer for most of last year, and failed to hedge its bets on interest rates, which ultimately played a key role in the bank’s downfall. In the meantime, the bank’s deposits ballooned from less than $50bn in 2019 to nearly $200bn in 2021.From the moment that Congress passed banking reforms through the 2010 Dodd-Frank law, SVB lobbied to defang the same rules that would probably have allowed regulators to spot trouble sooner. On many occasions, lawmakers and regulators from both parties bowed to the bank’s demands.One of SVB’s first targets was a key Dodd-Frank reform aimed at preventing federally insured banks from using deposits for risky investments. In 2012, SVB petitioned the Obama administration to exempt venture capital from the so-called Volcker Rule, which prevented banks from investing in or sponsoring private equity or hedge funds.​​“Venture investments are not the type of high-risk, ‘casino-like’ activities Congress designed the Volcker Rule to eliminate,” the bank argued to regulators. “Venture capital investments fund the high-growth startup companies that will drive innovation, create jobs, promote our economic growth, and help the United States compete in the global marketplace.”After the Obama administration finalized the Volcker Rule in 2014 without a venture capital carveout, SVB sought its own exemption that would allow it to maintain direct investments in venture capital funds, in addition to providing traditional banking services for roughly half of all venture-backed companies.One such firm was Ribbit Capital, a key investor in the collapsed cryptocurrency exchange FTX, which lauded SVB’s tech-friendly ethos in a 2015 New York Times profile. “You can go to a big bank, but you have to teach them how you are doing your investment,” Ribbit’s founder told the Times. At SBV, “these guys breathe, eat and drink this Kool-Aid every day.”In the transition between the Obama and Trump administrations, SVB got what it wanted: a string of deregulation, based on the idea that the bank posed no threat to the financial system.In 2015, Becker, the CEO, submitted testimony to Congress arguing that SVB, “like our mid-size peers, does not present systemic risks” – and therefore should not be subject to the more stringent regulations, stress tests and capital requirements required at the time for banks with $50bn or more in assets.Two years later, SVB was one of just a handful of banks to receive a five-year exemption from the Volcker Rule, allowing it to maintain its investments in high-risk venture capital funds.The deregulatory drumbeat grew louder in Congress, and in 2018 lawmakers passed legislation increasing to $250bn the threshold at which banks receive enhanced supervision – again, based on the argument that smaller banks would never prove “too big to fail”.The Federal Reserve chairman, Jerome Powell, supported the deregulatory push. Under Powell, a former private equity executive, the Fed in 2019 implemented a so-called “tailoring rule”, further exempting mid-size banks from liquidity requirements and stress tests.Even then, the banks’ lobbying groups continued to push a blanket exemption to the Volcker Rule for venture capital funds, which Powell advocated for and banking regulators granted in 2020.Then, in 2021, SVB won the Federal Reserve’s signoff on its $900m acquisition of Boston Private Bank and Trust, on the grounds that the post-merger bank would not “pose significant risk to the financial system in the event of financial distress”.“SVB Group’s management has the experience and resources to ensure that the combined organization would operate in a safe and sound manner,” Federal Reserve officials wrote.Since the financial crisis, SVB has reported spending more than $2m on federal lobbying efforts, while the bank’s political action committee and executives have made nearly $650,000 in campaign contributions, the bulk to Democrats.Among the highlights of this influence campaign was a 2016 fundraiser for the Democratic senator Mark Warner of Virginia, hosted by Greg Becker in his Menlo Park home. A few months later, Warner and three other Democratic senators wrote to regulators arguing for weaker capital rules on regional banks.Warner went on to become one of 50 congressional Democrats who joined with Republicans to pass the 2018 Dodd-Frank rollback. When asked this week about his vote, Warner said: “I think it put in place an appropriate level of regulation on mid-sized banks … these mid-sized banks needed some regulatory relief.”In the wake of SVB’s collapse, Republicans have not renounced their votes for deregulation – nor have most of the Democrats who joined them, even as Biden is promising a crackdown.Warner took to ABC’s This Week on Sunday to defend his vote; Senator Jeanne Shaheen, the Democrat from New Hampshire, told NBC on Tuesday that “all the regulation in the world isn’t going to fix bad management practices”. Senator Jon Tester, the Democrat from Montana and a co-sponsor of the 2018 deregulatory law, even held a fundraiser in Silicon Valley the day after the SVB bailout was announced.Unless they reverse course, the Silicon Valley Bank bailout could prove politically disastrous for Democrats, who just oversaw the rescue of coastal elites in a moment of ongoing economic pain for everyone else.The good news is that there are straightforward steps that Democrats can take to start fixing things.For example: Senator Elizabeth Warren’s legislation to repeal Trump-era financial deregulation.Democrats can also revisit the areas where Dodd-Frank fell short, including stronger minimum capital requirements, and consider longstanding proposals to disincentivize risky behavior by banks by reforming bankers’ pay. And they should demand that Powell recuse himself from the Federal Reserve investigation of recent bank failures and take a hard look at whether his disastrous record merits outright dismissal under the Federal Reserve Act, which allows the president to fire a central bank chair “for cause”.And yet even now – amid the wreckage of deregulation – these and other measures to better regulate the banks may still be nonstarters among both the Republicans and corporate Democrats who voted for the regulatory rollbacks and have so far shown little sign of repentance.The words of the Illinois Democratic senator Dick Durbin still ring true, 14 years after the financial crisis.“The banks – hard to believe in a time when we’re facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created – are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill,” he said back in 2009. “And they frankly own the place.”If that remains true today, the possibility of change looks grim.
      Rebecca Burns and Julia Rock are reporters for the Lever, an independent investigative news outlet, where a version of this article also appeared More

    • 213 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      The US central bank is poised to cause untold hardship to millions of Americans | Robert Reich

      by

      The US central bank is poised to cause untold hardship to millions of AmericansRobert ReichThe Federal Reserve chairman has admitted that at least 2 million people could lose their jobs if interest rates keep risingAs chairman of the Federal Reserve board, Jerome Powell is making his semi-annual policy report to Congress this week. I have an urgent question for Powell that I hope members of Congress will also ask: how can he justify further rate hikes in light of America’s staggering inequality?The US should break up monopolies – not punish working Americans for rising prices | Robert ReichRead morePowell and his colleagues on the Fed’s open market committee are considering pushing interest rates much higher in their quest to get inflation down to their target of 2%. They believe higher interest rates will reduce consumer spending and slow the economy.With all due respect, this is unnecessary – and unjust.Over the past year, the Fed raised interest rates at the fastest pace since the 1980s, from near zero to more than 4.5%. But consumer spending isn’t slowing. It fell slightly in November and December but jumped 1.8% in January, even faster than inflation.As a result, Powell is now saying he may need to lift rates above 5%. A recent paper by a group of academic and Wall Street economists suggests that he will need to raise interest rates as high as 6.5% to meet his 2% target.This would worsen America’s already staggering inequalities.You see, the Americans who are doing most of the spending are not the ones who will be hit hardest by the rate increases. The biggest spenders are in the top fifth of the income ladder. The biggest losers will be in the bottom fifth.Widening inequality has given the richest fifth a lot of room to keep spending. Even before the pandemic, they were doing far better than most other Americans.The top fifth’s savings are still much higher than they were before the pandemic, so they can continue their spending spree almost regardless of how high the Fed yanks up rates.That spending is a big reason Powell and his colleagues at the Fed are having so much difficulty slowing the economy by raising interest rates (in addition to the market power of many big corporations to continue raising prices and profit margins).Those higher rates are flowing back into the top fifth’s savings, on which they’re collecting interest. But yank up rates much more and we’ll impose big sacrifices on lower-income Americans.Powell himself has predicted that at least 2 million people will lose their jobs if he raises interest rates to 4.6% by the end of the year.The study I mentioned a moment ago concludes that “there is no post-1950 precedent for a sizable central-bank-induced disinflation that does not entail substantial economic sacrifice or recession”.Well, there’s also no post-1950 precedent for the degree of income inequality America is now experiencing.Relying on further interest-rate hikes to fight inflation will only worsen the consequence of America’s near-record inequality. The people who will endure the biggest sacrifices as the economy slows will be the first to lose their jobs: mostly, those in the bottom fifth.There’s no reason for further hikes, anyway. Inflation is already slowing.I understand Powell’s concern. What looked like a steady, albeit gradual, slowdown is now looking even more gradual. But so what? It’s the direction that counts.He should abandon the 2% target rate of inflation. There’s nothing sacrosanct about 2%. Why not four? Getting inflation down to 2% is going to cause too much pain for the most vulnerable.And Powell should suggest to Congress that it use other tools to fight inflation, such as barring corporations with more than 30% market share from raising their prices higher than the overall inflation rate – as recently proposed by New York’s attorney general.Mr Powell, if you’re reading, may I be perfectly frank? You weren’t elected to your current post. Nor were your colleagues. That’s understandable. The Fed needs to be insulated from politics. But you at least owe it to America to do your job fairly.It would be terribly unjust to draft into the inflation fight those who are least able.
      Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley, and the author of Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few and The Common Good. His new book, The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It, is out now. He is a Guardian US columnist. His newsletter is at robertreich.substack.com
      TopicsUS politicsOpinionEconomic policyUS economic growth and recessionJerome PowellFederal ReservecommentReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Fed announces smallest interest hike in a year as inflation ‘eases somewhat’

      by

      Fed announces smallest interest hike in a year as inflation ‘eases somewhat’Quarter-point increase to a range of 4.5% to 4.75% signals a slowdown in Fed’s fight against soaring inflation The US Federal Reserve signaled a slowdown in its fight against soaring inflation on Wednesday, announcing its smallest hike in interest rates in almost a year.After its latest meeting, the Fed announced a quarter-point increase in its benchmark interest rate to a range of 4.5% to 4.75%, the smallest increase since March last year. “Inflation has eased somewhat but remains elevated,” the Fed said in a statement adding that “ongoing increases” will be appropriate as it seeks to bring prices down.“We covered a lot of ground, and the full effects of our rapid tightening so far are yet to be felt. Even so, we have more work to do,” said Fed chair Jerome Powell.Inflation in the US has been running at levels unseen since the 1980s, triggering a cost of living crisis as the price of everything from eggs to gas and rent has shot up.In order to tamp down inflation the Fed has aggressively hiked rates as it seeks to cool the economy and bring prices back under control.A year ago the Fed rate – which affects the interest rates on everything from business and personal loans to mortgages and credit card rates – was close to zero. After the most rapid series of rises since the 1980s, it is now at a level last seen in 2007.There are signs that prices are coming down. In December, the annual rate of inflation fell to6.5% from 7.1% in the previous month, the sixth straight month of yearly declines and well below the peak of 9.1% it hit in June, its highest rate since 1982.Consumer spending – the largest driver of the economy – fell 0.2% from November to December. The housing market has slowed and many of the major tech companies have announced large job cuts as they have moved to rein in spending.But inflation remains well above the Fed’s annual target rate of 2% and the central bank has said it will keep rates high until price stability is achieved. The Fed also continues to worry about the jobs market. The unemployment rate was 3.5% in December, a 50-year low and on Wednesday the labor department announced there were 11m job openings in the US in December – almost two available jobs for every person looking for one and an increase from November.The tight labor market has driven up wages and Powell, has made clear that the central bank believes rising wages threaten to spur on inflation – a so-called wage-price spiral. “You don’t see that yet, but the whole point is, once you see it, you have a serious problem. That means that effectively in people’s decision-making, inflation has become a real salient issue,” said Powell. “That is what we can’t allow to happen.”TopicsFederal ReserveUS economyJerome PowellEconomicsUS politicsInflationnewsReuse this content More

    • 213 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      The US should break up monopolies – not punish working Americans for rising prices | Robert Reich

      by

      The US should break up monopolies – not punish working Americans for rising pricesRobert ReichThe Fed is putting people out of work to reduce workers’ bargaining power and reduce inflation. They’ve got it all wrong Job growth and wages are slowing. Employers added 223,000 jobs in December, the labor department reported on Friday – lower than the average in recent months.Average hourly wages rose by 4.6% in December, according to Friday’s report. That’s a slowdown from 4.8% in November.All this is music to the ears of Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell, because the Fed blames inflation on rising wages. The Fed has been increasing interest rates to slow the economy and thereby reduce the bargaining power of workers to get wage gains.At his press conference on 14 December announcing the Fed’s latest interest rate hike, Powell warned that “the labor market remains extremely tight, with the unemployment rate near a 50-year low, job vacancies still very high, and wage growth elevated”.But aren’t higher wages a good thing?The typical American worker’s wage has been stuck in the mud for four decades.Most of the gains from a more productive economy have been going to the top – to executives and investors. The richest 10% of Americans now own more than 90% of the value of shares of stock owned by Americans.Powell’s solution to inflation is to clobber workers even further. He says “the labor market continues to be out of balance, with demand substantially exceeding the supply of available workers”.But if the demand for workers exceeds the supply, isn’t the answer to pay workers more?Not according to Powell and the Fed. Their answer is to continue to raise interest rates to slow the economy and put more people out of work, so workers can’t get higher wages. That way, “supply and demand conditions in the labor market [will] come into better balance over time, easing upward pressures on wages and prices,” says Powell.Putting people out of work is the Fed’s means of reducing workers’ bargaining power and the “upward pressures on wages and prices”.The Fed projects that as it continues to increase interest rates, unemployment will rise to 4.6% by the end of 2023 – resulting in more than 1m job losses.But fighting inflation by putting more people out of work is cruel, especially when America’s safety nets – including unemployment insurance – are in tatters.As we saw at the start of the pandemic, because the US doesn’t have a single nationwide system for getting cash to jobless workers, they have to depend on state unemployment insurance, which varies considerably from state to state.Many fall through the cracks. When the pandemic began, fewer than 30% of jobless Americans qualified for unemployment benefits.The problem isn’t that wages are rising. The real problem is that corporations have the power to pass those wage increases – along with record profit margins – on to consumers in the form of higher prices.If corporations had to compete vigorously for consumers, they wouldn’t be able to do this. Competitors would charge lower prices and grab those consumers away.Corporations aren’t even plowing their extra profits into new investments that would generate higher productivity in the future. They’re buying back their shares to boost stock prices. Through the end of 2022, American firms announced stock buybacks exceeding $1tn.A rational response to inflation, therefore, would not increase unemployment in order to reduce the bargaining power of workers to get higher wages.It would be to reduce the pricing power of corporations to pass those costs along to consumers along with rising profit margins, by making markets more competitive.Corporate pricing power is out of control because corporations face so little competition.Worried about sky-high airline fares and lousy service? That’s largely because airlines have merged from 12 carriers in 1980 to four today.Concerned about drug prices? A handful of drug companies control the pharmaceutical industry.Upset about food costs? Four giants now control over 80% of meat processing, 66% of the pork market, and 54% of the poultry market.Worried about grocery prices? Albertsons bought Safeway and now Kroger is buying Albertsons. Combined, they would control almost 22% of the US grocery market. Add in Walmart, and the three brands would control 70% of the grocery market in 167 cities across the country.And so on. The evidence of corporate concentration is everywhere.It’s getting worse. There were over a thousand major corporate mergers or acquisitions last year. Each had a merger value of $100m or more. The total transaction value was $1.4tn.The government must stop putting the responsibility for fighting inflation on working people whose wages have gone nowhere for four decades.Put the responsibility where it belongs – on big corporations with power to raise their prices.One possibility: any large corporation in an industry dominated by five or fewer giant corporations that raises its prices more than the Fed’s target of 2% should be presumed to have monopoly power, and slammed with an antitrust lawsuit.
      Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley, and the author of Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few and The Common Good. His new book, The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It, is out now. He is a Guardian US columnist. His newsletter is at robertreich.substack.com
      TopicsUS economyOpinionUS politicsInflationEconomicsFederal ReservecommentReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      US adds 263,000 jobs in November as unemployment rate stays at 3.7%

      by

      US adds 263,000 jobs in November as unemployment rate stays at 3.7%Jobs market remains strong even as Fed imposes biggest series of rate rises in decades in effort to tame inflation The US added 263,000 jobs in November, the labor department announced on Friday, another strong month of jobs growth. The unemployment rate remained at 3.7%, close to a 50-year low.Employers hired 284,000 new positions in October and 269,000 in September and the latest figures show hiring has remained resilient despite rising interest rates and the announcement of a series of layoffs at technology and real estate companies.The jobs market has remained strong even as the Federal Reserve has imposed the biggest series of rate rises in decades in its fight to tame inflation. This week, the Fed chair, Jerome Powell, indicated that the continuing strength of the jobs market – and rising wages – were likely to trigger more rate rises in the coming months.The US had been expected to add 200,000 jobs in November. The latest jobs numbers – the last before the Fed meets to decide its next move later this month – will strengthen the central bank’s resolve to keep raising rates.“This phenomenal labor market is showing little sign of slowdown,” said Becky Frankiewicz, president and chief commercial officer of ManpowerGroup. “Despite recurring headlines of deep cutbacks – primarily in tech – other sectors have scaled up; and while we’ve been bracing for a downturn, the broader labor market has barely flinched.”Economists expect rate hikes will eventually dampen hiring, potentially leading to a recession and job losses next year. But so far, the jobs market has shaken off the Fed’s interventions.The government figures follow a downbeat report from ADP, the US’s largest payroll supplier. On Wednesday, ADP said the private sector had added just 127,000 positions for the month, well below the 190,000 forecast by economists and a steep reduction from the 239,000 jobs ADP recorded in October.ADP’s chief economist, Nela Richardson, said it was still too early to say but it seemed the rate rises were filtering through to hiring decisions.“Turning points can be hard to capture in the labor market, but our data suggest that Federal Reserve tightening is having an impact on job creation and pay gains,” said Richardson. “In addition, companies are no longer in hyper-replacement mode. Fewer people are quitting and the post-pandemic recovery is stabilizing.”TopicsUS unemployment and employment dataUS economyFederal ReserveUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 200 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      We need serious public policy, not more printed money – the US economy is in tatters

      by

      AnalysisWe need serious public policy, not more printed money – the US economy is in tattersDoug HenwoodDecades of bailouts have convinced some that the Fed will always come to the rescue – but this only papers over the fundamental flaws of the US economy With the Federal Reserve leading the world’s central banks in a tightening cycle of interest rate rises, the likes of which we haven’t seen since 2006, commentators across the political spectrum are noting the fondness of the Fed chair, Jerome “Jay” Powell, for his legendary predecessor, Paul Volcker. On the left, the comparison is fearful; on the center and on the right, it’s one of admiration. But circumstances don’t really support the comparison.Fed announces sixth consecutive hike in US interest rates to fight inflationRead moreOn taking office in October 1979, Volcker declared “the standard of living of the average American has to decline” as a consequence of the war against the chronic inflation of the 1970s. He quickly set to work making that happen by driving interest rates up towards 20% and creating the deepest US recession since the 1930s.That squeeze did put an end to high inflation but at a tremendous social cost. Six million people lost their jobs over the next three years, taking the unemployment rate from 6% to almost 11% in late 1982. The cost wasn’t merely short-term. About half of those job losses were categorized as permanent, as opposed to being temporary layoffs, many of them in the manufacturing heartland. The term “rust belt” entered common usage.Volcker was appointed by Jimmy Carter, who seemed to have no idea of what he was getting himself into. His friend and adviser, the Georgia banker Bert Lance, prophetically warned him that he was dooming his prospects in the 1980s election. But Carter listened to the consensus of Wall Street and the political class – Volcker was the man to tame inflation, which was running around 13% at the end of 1979. The US had seen inflation rates that high before, but never outside of major wars or their immediate aftermath. Inflation, which was under 2% in 1965, had been rising relentlessly for 15 years, barely pausing even in the nasty recession of the mid-1970s. Contrary to a belief popular on the left, that inflation was not kind to workers. Wages badly lagged prices, and real average hourly earnings fell 14% between 1973 and 1980.There are some similarities between the present and 40 years ago. Then, as now, food and energy prices were important factors in sparking inflation, but in both cases, even if you strip out those two volatile components, a severe inflation remains. And in both cases, polls have shown inflation to be deeply unpopular.But there are also major differences, notably in the strength of labor. At the end of the 1970s, almost a quarter of all workers were unionized; now only about a tenth are. Then, an average of 22,000 workdays were lost to strikes every year; last year it was just 1,500 – a decline of 93%. The early 1980s recession hammered the bargaining power of the working class. Unions were busted, and we went from a time when Take This Job and Shove It could be a hit song (as it was in 1977) to one where workers were grateful to have any job at all, no matter how tenuous and low-paying. As the recession ended in late 1982, the stock market took off and the employer class began a 40-year celebration of its triumph.That’s not the world Powell finds himself in. Inflation has been a problem for close to 15 months rather than 15 years, and although there are some tentative signs of life in the labor movement – notably at one Amazon site and a few hundred Starbucks outlets (out of 9,000) – the share of the labor force represented by unions fell last year, and strike activity so far in 2022 is about a third lower than in 2021. Unlike the inflation of the 1970s, this is not the wage-push kind (to use the jargon). It’s been driven first by supply chain blockages, thanks to Covid, and extended by embargoes against Russian energy exports, and most workers are just looking on helplessly as their paychecks fail to keep up with price increases.There’s another difference as well: we’re coming off a decade of extremely indulgent monetary policy. Coming out of the Great Recession, the Fed kept short-term interest rates near zero between 2011 and 2021, with the brief exception when they pushed them up to just over 2% in 2017 and 2018 (still quite low by historical standards). On top of that, the central bank pumped over $3tn (£2.7tn) into the financial markets between 2008 and 2015, and almost $5tn between early 2020 and early 2022. The earlier pumping was meant to prevent a financial implosion after the sub-prime crisis, and the latter to counter the threats of the early pandemic months. But the result of both has been to stimulate crazy inflation in asset prices – stocks, crypto, unicorns, housing – a remarkable waste of capital and one that can be very risky to deflate. Decades of bailouts have convinced financial market players that the Fed will always come in to rescue them and reversing that mentality could require a Volckerish austerity for Wall Street – one that’s politically hard to imagine.The Fed’s interest rate hikes are going to hit the most vulnerable | Dean BakerRead moreWhat Powell is up to now bears almost no resemblance to Volcker’s clampdown. The federal funds rate, the interest rate at which banks lend each other money overnight – that is the Fed’s most direct policy target – changed from just above 0% to just under 4% after raising the target rate another 0.75 points this week. That’s almost 15 points below the Volcker peak. In real terms – deducting the rate of inflation – Volcker’s peak was almost 10%, a lot higher. Right now, the real fed funds rate is around -4% (yes, that’s a negative sign). Powell may admire Volcker, but next to him, he’s a piker.The debate over monetary policy overlooks a more important issue. That decade of cheap money papered over a lot of fundamental problems with the US economy: low levels of public and private investment, massive polarization between rich and poor and unstable employment for much of the labor force. These should be addressed with serious public policy, not by printing money. It would be nice if we talked about that, but given the degraded state of American political discourse, I’m not hopeful.
      Doug Henwood is an economic journalist based in Brooklyn. His radio show, Behind the News, airs on KPFA radio in Berkeley, and is available on all the standard podcast outlets
      TopicsFederal ReserveUS economyJerome PowellUS politicsInflationanalysisReuse this content More