Federal Reserve

Subterms

    More stories

    • 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

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Don’t be fooled: policymakers are quietly invoking austerity by other names | Clara Mattei

      by

      Don’t be fooled: policymakers are quietly invoking austerity by other namesClara MatteiFraming monetary policy as a war effort has been part of the playbook for instituting austerity policies for over a century Austerity, like trickle-down economics, has been relegated to the list of things economists don’t talk about anymore. Austerity’s core policies – hikes in interest rates, downward pressure of fiscal spending and wages – had their last stand with the European sovereign-debt crisis a decade ago, and the resulting public outcry made the “a-word” unmentionable, even in times of economic crisis. So, on 21 September, when Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell announced his fifth interest-rate hike of the last nine months, this dirtiest word in economic policy was conspicuously absent from his remarks. Instead, Powell described the process of resetting the economy – through the introduction of increased unemployment and possible recession –as a necessary form of “economic pain.” Powell’s comments echoed those of his British counterpart, former chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak, in a letter to Boris Johnson: “[the public] need to know that whilst there is a path to a better future, it is not an easy one.” This framing of monetary policy as some sort of war effort – hard work and individual sacrifice for the greater good –has been part of the playbook for instituting austerity policies for more than a century. In 1920, at the first international financial conference in Brussels, British civil servant Robert H Brand evangelized economic narratives focused on this “hard truth”: in order for the economy to get back on its feet after World War I, “the answer is a very painful one and yet a very simple one. We must all work hard, live hard, and save hard.” As Powell, Sunak and Brand demonstrate, the road to austerity is paved with vague euphemisms.For a policy so reviled that officials can’t even speak its name, austerity continues to enjoy a remarkable century-long run as the go-to policy prescription for national economies in strife. This is even more remarkable when one considers that, as the work of political economist Mark Blyth and others have shown, austerity policies don’t actually work – at least not in their stated ends of boosting economic growth and reducing debt. If we know that austerity doesn’t fix what needs fixed, then why is it suddenly making a comeback? Keynesian critics dismiss this paradox as a simple matter of bad policy informed by bad economic theory. But how does this response square with a world that is increasingly stewarded by Keynesian economists – a world in which the Keynesians are the ones courting austerity?A more satisfying explanation emerges when we recognize that austerity is more than just a tool for managing an economy. Rather, austerity is a political project that is crucial to upholding the smooth functioning of our economic system.In order for a capitalist system to work in delivering economic growth, the social relation of capital – people selling their labor power for a wage – must be stable across a society. Where prices or wages go up or go haywire, the system fails, and economic disaster quickly follows.‘Starve and shiver with Sunak’ is the reality for millions. The chancellor can – and must – stop it | Gordon BrownRead moreIn this way, a country’s commitment to economic growth presupposes a certain sociopolitical order, or capital order. Every capitalist society needs accumulation at the top and laboring at the bottom in order to keep expanding its pie. This organization is neither fixed nor a given; it has to be constantly protected through economic policies. That’s exactly the function austerity serves: it preserves the basic class relations at the core of our economy, especially in times of social changes. In the US, that social changeis the rapid reconfiguring of the labor market since the onset of the pandemic. It is no longer the case that the lowest-paying jobs are eagerly taken up by a labor class; instead, many people have seemingly reexamined the merits of participating in a labor market rife with unappealing conditions. And as inflation makes wage work even less sustainable than it was before the pandemic, the problem is compounded. The fiscal, monetary, and industrial measures that make up austerity are not, as they’re typically described, an economic war effort for the greater good. They are simply the crude tools for reestablishing the quiet disciplinary mechanisms that organize modern societies. For some, the short-term cost of a temporary economic recession is worth its structural gain; austerity restabilizes class relations and thus refurbishes the conditions for profits. As we enter a period of “economic pain,” it is worth considering whether this endgame justifies it.
      Clara E Mattei is assistant professor of economics at the New School for Social Research in New York City. She is author of The Capital Order: How Economists Invented Austerity and Paved the Way to Fascism, which will publish in November from the University of Chicago Press
      TopicsUS politicsOpinionUS economyFederal ReserveAusteritycommentReuse this content More

    • 188 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Fed raises interest rate by 0.75 percentage points as US seeks to rein in inflation

      by

      Fed raises interest rate by 0.75 percentage points as US seeks to rein in inflationThird outsized rate increase in a row as central bank struggles to fight runaway inflation, increasing the cost of everything The Federal Reserve announced another sharp hike in interest rates on Wednesday as the central bank struggles to rein in runaway inflation.The Fed raised its benchmark interest rate by 0.75 percentage points, the third such outsized rate increase in a row, bringing the Fed rate to 3%-3.25% and increasing the cost of everything from credit card debt and mortgages to company financing.The central bank signaled more raises to come, predicting rates would reach 4.4% by the end of the year and not start coming down until 2024. The Fed expects the rate rises to hit the job market – raising unemployment from 3.7% to 4.4% next year – housing prices and to lower economic growth.“We have got to get inflation behind us. I wish there were a painless way to do that. There isn’t,” the Fed chair, Jerome Powell, said. “We have always understood that restoring price stability while achieving a relatively modest increase in unemployment and a soft landing would be very challenging. And we don’t know. No one knows whether this process will lead to a recession or if so, how significant that recession would be.”Central bankers around the world are raising rates sharply as they too attempt to tackle the cost of living crisis. This week the Bank of England is expected to announce its largest rate rise in 25 years. The European Central Bank raised interest rates across the eurozone by a record margin earlier this month.The Fed initially dismissed rising inflation, arguing it was a “transitory” phase triggered by the pandemic and supply chain issues. But as prices escalated the Fed announced a series of aggressive moves in the hopes of bringing prices back under control.Until recently Powell had said he hoped that the economy could achieve what he called a “soft landing” – a slowdown that would bring costs down but not lead to a spike in unemployment and a recession.Speaking at a congressional hearing on Wednesday, some of the US’s top bankers said it was too early to tell how rate rises would impact the economy. “I think there’s a chance, not a big change, a small chance, of a soft landing,” said Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase.“There’s a chance of a mild recession, a chance of a hard recession. And because of the war in Ukraine and the uncertainty in global energy and food supply, there’s a chance that it could be worse. I think policymakers should be prepared for the worst, so we take the right actions if and when that happens,” he said.Raising rates makes borrowing more expensive which should reduce spending and lower prices. But the policy is a blunt instrument and rate rises take time to filter through to the wider economy. So far the Fed’s rate rises have not had a significant impact.The US jobs market remains robust, with unemployment still close to a 50-year low, consumer spending rose last month and inflation remained stubbornly high in August, 8.3% higher than a year ago.There are, however, some signs of a slowdown. Existing home sales fell in August for the seventh consecutive month, according to the National Association of Realtors. Sales were 19.9% lower than in August 2021 and are now at their lowest level since they briefly stalled during the height of the pandemic in 2020. And large employers including BestBuy, Ford and Walmart have announced layoffs or hiring freezes.TopicsFederal ReserveUS economyBank of EnglandInflationEconomicsEuropean Central BankUS politicsnewsReuse this content More