What Hath The FERAL Reserve Wrought?

The FERAL Reserve needs to answer the Clue Phone, as it is ringing louder than ever.  The stock market is crashing, and the Sahm Rule recession indicator is currently flashing red.  The broader economy itself is not crashing--yet--but at least a mild recession seems to be already baked into the cake at this point.  

The Fed's overzealous crusade against inflation has ultimately jumped the proverbial shark a while ago.  They hiked interest rates too high and stubbornly kept them too high for too long, creating a stagflationary quagmire as a result.  Inflation began to fall on its own once the pandemic-induced global supply chain crisis was resolved, and also the geopolitical issues abroad (war, sanctions, etc.) were less intense for the USA than initially thought, no thanks to the interest rate hikes, which only deepened the quagmire in the long run. 

We have been saying for a while now, and will say it again:  the Fed absolutely MUST cut interest rates yesterday, full stop.  An emergency rate cut of 100 basis points (aka one full percentage point) is clearly indicated for this situation to prevent the worst case scenario from unfolding.   

Don't say we didn't warn you!

UPDATE:  Looks like the stock market has recovered from the correction for now.  But our point still stands regardless.  And inflation is basically defeated for the time being.  Cut interest rates NOW!

Hey FERAL Reserve, Cut Interest Rates NOW!

The FERAL Reserve still has yet to cut interest rates, and despite the Dow Jones recently hitting 40,000, the risk of recession is apparently growing by the day.  And after falling dramatically from its 2022 peak of 9% once the pandemic-induced (more like lockdown-induced) supply chain issues and shortages got resolved, inflation currently remains stubbornly stuck in the neighborhood of 3%.  Because Jerome Powell is too stubborn to cut rates, thus keeping us trapped in a quagmire.  Hello, stagflation!

A recession is probably already baked into the cake at this point, and thus is probably too late to avoid entirely.  Granted.  But the Fed can still at least delay the onset, reduce the length and severity, and promote a speedier recovery IF they would deign to cut rates yesterday.  And even just delaying the onset by a quarter or two would likely postpone it until after the November election, reducing the odds that the Donald would win again. 

Last Chance To Avoid Recession

Inflation is now effectively beaten.  Not only has it cooled significantly, but now the specter of deflation has recently been raised, and has already been seen in the prices of durable goods falling a bit recently.  Oil is also down as well, which has of course led to a recent drop in gasoline prices.  And this is in spite of the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, which otherwise would have raised oil prices, ceteris paribus, due to the resulting geopolitical instability and uncertainty. 

Deflation may sound like a good thing, especially after such a high inflationary episode, but if it persists, it can turn into a downward economic spiral that is far worse than inflation (think the Great Depression, or Japan's three decades of rolling deflation from the early 1990s until very recently).  It also amplifies the sting of debt, and with debt of all kinds at such stratospheric levels today, America needs that like a hole in the head.  Once such a spiral begins and sets in, it is very, very difficult to extricate from.  Not even QE can seem to end it (though giving such "helicopter money" directly to We the People might work). And deflation is, at best, very difficult to control.

So the FERAL Reserve really needs to cut interest significantly, and pause QT, yesterday, before they create a problem that is practically impossible to dislodge. And if that doesn't work, prepare to not only restart QE, but also implement "QE for the people" as well. say you weren't warned.

In other words, this is the LAST CHANCE to avoid recession or worse.  And there is always a lag of at least two quarters, so if they wait until the recession begins before they begin cutting rates, it would be too late, and would be like "pushing on a string".

That said, looks like the Fed decided to stop hiking interest rates, and signaled at least three interest rate cuts in 2024.  So now is the best time to put your money in a CD account to lock in the current rates.  But who knows when they will cut rates?

Hey FERAL Reserve, Cut Interest Rates NOW!

Inflation is now effectively beaten.  Not only has it cooled significantly, but now the specter of deflation has recently been raised, and has already been seen in the prices of durable goods falling a bit recently.  Oil is also down as well, which has of course led to a recent drop in gasoline prices.  And this is in spite of the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, which otherwise would have raised oil prices, ceteris paribus, due to the resulting geopolitical instability and uncertainty. 

Deflation may sound like a good thing, especially after such a high inflationary episode, but if it persists, it can turn into a downward economic spiral that is far worse than inflation (think the Great Depression, or Japan's three decades of rolling deflation from the early 1990s until very recently).  It also amplifies the sting of debt, and with debt of all kinds at such stratospheric levels today, America needs that like a hole in the head.  Once such a spiral begins and sets in, it is very, very difficult to extricate from.  Not even QE can seem to end it (though giving such "helicopter money" directly to We the People might work). And deflation is, at best, very difficult to control.

So the FERAL Reserve really needs to cut interest significantly, and pause QT, yesterday, before they create a problem that is practically impossible to dislodge.  And if that doesn't work, prepare to not only restart QE, but also implement "QE for the people" as well. say you weren't warned.

UPDATE:  Looks like the Fed decided to stop hiking interest rates, and signaled three interest rate cuts next year in 2024.  So now is the best time to put your money in a CD account to lock in the current rates.

Too Late To Avoid A Recession, But Let's NOT Make It Worse!

It looks like it is too late to avoid a recession at this point, as some degree of one is already baked into the cake at this point.  Not only are there several big headwinds right now (rising oil prices, rising insurance rates, record-high credit card debt, student loans coming due, Congressional dysfunction, and the prospect of a government shutdown), but the FERAL Reserve has obstinately kept interest rates high at a Fed Funds Rate of 5.25%.  While it may not seem high by historical standards, combined with their Quantitative  Tightening and record-high levels of debt throughout the economy, it can easily feel like the double-digit interest rates of the late 1970s and early 1980s.  Aside from oil (thanks to Russia and OPEC) and a few other things, which interest rate hikes are utterly useless and even counterproductive against, the recent inflation has already been largely defeated, and may soon turn to deflation.  Which sounds great in theory, but in practice is anything but.

While it is most likely too late to avoid a recession at this point, the very least the Fed could do is cut interest rates yesterday and end Quantitative Tightening to avoid an even worse recession or depression.  Don't say you haven't been warned.

UPDATE: As of September 30, the government shutdown was averted, but the issue was really just delayed by 45 days via a stopgap funding bill.  Additionally, as of early October, crude oil prices began falling but diesel fuel remains stubbornly high for a number of reasons such as a refinery crunch.

Dear FERAL Reserve: Cut Interest Rates NOW!

With inflation falling to around 3% per the latest report, which is within the normal range for a growing economy, we can safely conclude that the war on inflation has been won.  The dragon may not have been slain, but it has largely gone back to sleep for the foreseeable future.  Supply chains seem to have long since fully recovered for the most part, while most of the inflation since then has been wanton "greedflation" by mega-corporations consolidating and rigging the game (and thus interest rates are the wrong tool for the job).  And potential recession and even deflation clouds seem to be gathering on the horizon as we speak.  Even if there is no recession, keeping interest rates too high for too long can paradoxically increase inflation in the long run, or one could get the two for one special, as Canada unfortunately learned the hard way in the 1980s.  The "therapeutic window" for hiking interest rates to fight inflation is therefore closed.

Oh, and we have another housing bubble ready to burst at any time, apparently. 

So the FERAL Reserve really needs to stand down, stop raising rates, pause Quantitative  Tightening, and start cutting rates yesterday by at least 1% immediately, and eventually to below the inflation rate.  Or at least no later than their next meeting. Mr. Powell seems to be really begging for a recession (or worse) with his relentless tempting of fate!

This is the LAST chance we have to avoid a major financial crisis and severe deflationary recession (or worse), and that's if it's not already baked into the cake at this point.  Because once that happens, monetary policy (at least by conventional means) will be as utterly futile as pushing on a string.

QED

Do Interest Rate Hikes Really Fight Inflation?

Short answer:  In a word, NO.

Long answer:  It's a very nuanced and complicated issue, but in practice, hiking interest rates generally does more harm than good, and at best is really not very effective in fighting inflation. 

Interest rate hikes, far from being a "razor-sharp, double-edged sword" (as we at the TSAP used to say) in theory, they are in practice just as blunt of an instrument as tax hikes are.  And they only "work" insofar as they cause a recession, as history has shown.  When the FERAL Reserve raises interest rates, it is "pushing on a a string" when they raise them insufficiently to cause a recession, and "blunt force trauma" to the economy when they raise them enough to do so.  And when they cut rates, it is even more so like "pushing on a string", as the damage is usually already done by that point, and of course they cannot cross the "zero lower-bound" into negative rates without inherently turning the world of finance upside-down.  There seems to be no "Goldilocks zone" for interest rate policy during times of high inflation, and the "therapeutic window" is generally closed.

Knowledge says that choking the economy until it goes limp and then choking it some more technically reduces inflation by killing demand for goods and services.  But wisdom says that one could hardly call that a success.

Not only are interest rate hikes inherently recessionary, they can also paradoxically increase one of the two types of inflation, "cost-push inflation", even as they tamp down the other type, "demand-pull inflation."  Both types are two sides of the same coin, so it can easily result in (or exacerbate) chronic stagflation, for which the only "cure" is to hike the rates so extremely high to cause a deep recession or depression, followed by cutting rates very quickly, at the cost of massive collateral damage.  A "cure" that is worse than the disease.

And the fallout falls not on the rich, who are largely insulated from the consequences, but overwhelmingly on the poor and working class, and also the middle class as well.

Cutting the money supply, whether fiscally via austerity or monetarily via quantitative tightening, is also similarly recessionary and damaging as well.  Both forms of tightening, along with interest rate hikes, are at best "break glass in case of emergency" measures that should almost never be used, period.

In other words, if you "burn the village to save it", the village will eventually return the favor.  You reap what you sow.  That's literally how karma works.

Even Rodger Malcolm Mitchell himself has recently turned against the idea of interest rate hikes, a policy he once strongly supported.  That really says something indeed.  Ellen Brown would agree as well.

So what works instead?  According to Mitchell, the root cause of ALL inflations is shortages.  Whether it's oil, gas, energy in general, food, labor, or otherwise, shortages are the common denominator.  To cure inflation, we must cure the shortages.  Now that is often a lot easier said than done, but governments who issue their own currency can help resolve shortages by fiscally incentivizing more production of such scarce goods and services.  And, of course, to also refrain from creating shortages in the first place with things like price controls or other artificial restrictions by fiat that are known to backfire. 

Oil, gas, or energy shortage?  Incentivize more domestic oil/gas production in the short term, followed by renewable energy production in the medium to long term as well.  Buy oil/gas or energy at at premium and resell it or give it away at a loss.  Food shortage?  Buy food at a premium and resell it or give it away at a loss.  Computer chip shortage?  Incentivize domestic chip factories.  Labor shortage?  Implement a "reverse payroll tax" like the EITC but simpler and more straightforward, to boost the paychecks of workers without increasing costs for employers.  Or the government can hire the most in-demand workers directly at a premium.  And consider replacing all or some means-tested social welfare programs with an unconditional Universal Basic Income (UBI) that does not perversely penalize people for working.  And so on.  That's the power of creating one's own currency via Monetary Sovereignty. 

QED.  Case closed, at least until we find even more compelling evidence otherwise. Therefore, the TSAP's new position in interest rates shall supersede everything we have said in the past about the topic.

UPDATE:  So what is the ideal interest rate then?  Should we do what MMT advocates, and just park it at zero and leave it there? There is a good case to be made for that, and the answer probably depends on a number of factors.  But negative interest rates are really not a wise idea for a national currency (too negative and people just hoard cash under the mattress, while not negative enough is really no better than zero).  For complementary and alternative local currencies, negative interest (aka demurrage) can perhaps make sense, like the Austrian town of Worgl famously did during the Great Depression, but the benefits of such likely do not scale up very well.  Thus for national currencies, zero is the practical lower bound.  And if zero interest (i.e. being able to borrow money for free) is still not stimulative enough, then do "QE for the People" by printing more money and giving it directly to everyone, rather than the banks in "regular" QE.  Problem solved. 

James Gailbraith makes a great case for low interest rates overall.

Thus, like MMT, the natural interest rate should be assumed to be zero by default, but unlike MMT, we should still not tie our hands and take higher rates off the table completely as a "break glass in case of emergency" measure.  Nor should Treasury bond sales be completely discontinued either, as those help stabilize the financial system in times of instability.

But what about speculative bubbles?  Don't low interest rates encourage those?  Yes to some extent, but only if Wall Street is deregulated like the Wild West (like now).  Therefore, better regulation of the big banks and shadow banking system, and a financial transactions tax, are a better idea to rein in reckless speculation than high interest rates. 

TL;DR version:  In a nutshell, raising interest rates has a tendency to backfire and generally does more harm than good, once all the jargon and accoutrements are stripped away. Occam's Razor would say that deliberately making everything effectively more expensive across the board (by making money itself harder and costlier to get) to engineer a recession is a terrible way to fight inflation, and can only encourage a perpetual quagmire of stagflation.

What about the Canadian experience in the 1980s?  Well, their inflation and unemployment were even worse than the USA despite (or more likely because) they kept their interest rates higher for longer.  And that disparity persisted well into the 1990s, until they devalued their overvalued currency, and then cut interest rates, which seemed to solve the problem.

The Stimulus: Too Little, Too Late--But Still A Good Start

The much awaited stimulus package finally passed Congress and was signed into law by Trump yesterday.  While it is a good start, it is far too little and far too late to prevent a coronavirus recession, let alone recover from it--but it may just be enough to prevent or delay it from turning into a full-blown depression.  Hopefully, at least.

First, the FERAL Reserve fired their "bazooka" and cut interest rates to 1% and then to zero, restarted QE, and even cut the reserve requirement to zero as well.  The stock market still crashed.  Then they pledged unlimited cash assistance (via bond and asset buying) to any banks who may need it, a sort of QE on steroids or "UBI for the rich".  The stock market continued to tank, though ultimately seemed to reach an (interim) bottom after declining about a third from its mid-February all-time high.  Then Congress belatedly realized the need for fiscal stimulus, as the FERAL Reserve's measures really only shore up Wall Street and generally fail to "trickle down" to Main Street.  And now the FERAL Reserve is essentially out of ammo in terms of monetary policy.

The CARES Act, the third and most notable of the three coronavirus-related stimulus bills passed so far, among other things bails out businesses big and small, gives relief money to hospitals, expands unemployment benefits, and most famously, gives a one-time $1200 per person to most adults and $500 for children.  The whole package is $2.2 trillion dollars total  While good, this is still unlikely to be sufficient.   Rodger Malcolm Mitchell estimates that we need as much as $7 trillion in newly created dollars to really fix things for good.

What really needs be done are Rodger Malcolm Mitchell's Ten Steps to Prosperity, starting with abolishing FICA, implementing Medicare For All, and implementing Universal Basic Income (UBI), all paid for with new money creation.  We also need a Green New Deal and to improve our public health infrastructure as well.  Also, we at the TSAP believe that we need to pass an Act of Congress adding another, much more effective tool to the Fed's toolbox:  QE For The People, in which the Fed would deposit newly created money directly into the bank accounts of every single American.  This can be done in existing bank accounts, via debit cards, and/or by giving everyone with a Social Security number or ITIN an account at the Federal Reserve.  The latter was actually recommended by an author at The American Conservative of all places, who even described it as similar to UBI, showing that this idea is not just for leftists anymore, but rather transcends the entire political spectrum.  QE For The People will be far more effective than QE for the banks, since it works to stimulate the economy from the bottom up and middle out, not from the top down.

Also, the federal government should use its power of infinite money creation to purchase (at several times the market value) ventilators, masks, PPE, hospital beds, and any other essentials in short supply now, and distribute them for free.  And it would literally cost taxpayers nothing.  And yet, it took a crisis of such massive  proportions to finally and belatedly force the government's hand to even grudgingly give Americans free testing, paid sick leave, and modestly expanded food assistance in the first two stimulus bills.  Now is NOT the time to be cheap!

And lest anyone grouse about the National Debt, keep in mind that our Monetarily Sovereign federal can just print (or more accurately, keystroke) the money.  Yes, really.  That is what it means to be Monetarily Sovereign.  Money is just a simple accounting entry nowadays, so make the entry and be done with it.

Yesterday.

And if Fitch or Moody's or S&P threaten any credit rating downgrades for the USA, let them do what they will.  Then we should #MintTheCoin (i.e. a multi-trillion-dollar platinum coin) and call their bluff.  Problem solved.  Done, done, on to the next one.

It's not only about saving the economy from ruin, but now it's also literally a matter of life and death at this point.  Seriously.  So what are we waiting for?

UPDATE:  As of April, the Federal Reserve apparently has also begun helping Main Street as well as Wall Street, and taking unprecedented steps to do so.  Not quite full QE For The People yet, but hopefully it will eventually pave the way for it.  It's like they finally realized that a fully functioning Wall Street cannot really exist for long without a fully functioning Main Street.  After all, a purely FIRE economy cannot exist without an actual physical economy to back it up.

Just Print The Money

What seemingly intractable problems can be solved with just four simple words?  And which current presidential candidate once actually said those four exact words, "just print the money", or at least the last three of those four magic words?

A)  Bernie Sanders
B)  Elizabeth Warren
C)  Kamala Harris
D)  Joe Biden
E)  Donald Trump

Give up?  Scroll down to find the answer:

The answer, believe it or not, is E, Donald Trump.  Yes, THAT Donald Trump.  Meanwhile all of the other 2020 candidates (sorry Bernie, but even you don't get a pass on this one) are apparently too cowardly to utter those words when asked how they will "pay for" the various high-ticket items on their wish list.

Back in 2016, then presidential candidate Donald Trump said a lot of outrageous and controversial things and too many gaffes to count.  But one in particular stands out in light of recent posts and current events, namely, the one in which he implied he would default on the national debt if he couldn't negotiate a better deal.  Now that is clearly not something for a politician or candidate to even joke about, let alone actually do.  But it was what he said after he was criticized for it and he backpedaled on it which was actually much more noteworthy:

This is the United States government. First of all, you never have to default because you [just] print the money. I hate to tell you. So there’s never a default.

And that second "gaffe", ladies and gentlemen, was actually NOT a gaffe at all.  Why?  Because it is actually TRUE, believe it or not.  Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, after all.

Wait, what?  You read that correctly.  Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) has actually been arguing this for years now, as has Rodger Malcolm Mitchell and his own theory of Monetary Sovereignty (MS).  That is, a Monetarily Sovereign government like our own federal government and many others (but unlike the euro nations or any US state or local government) has the inherent and unlimited power to create money by fiat.  The only limits such a government has are those it chooses to impose on itself, such as the remaining arcane and archaic rules left over from when we actually had a gold standard before we got off of it in 1971.  The world changed in that year, but our "leaders" have apparently not gotten the memo.

You might want to sit down before you read any further.  Taxes do NOT actually pay for federal spending, rather, the government simply creates the money they spend ad hoc with a few clicks of a computer as they go along.  Nor is there any physical need for them to borrow money, but they do so anyway by issuing Treasury securities (i.e. T-bills, T-notes, and T-bonds) whenever they create new money that is unmatched by taxes in order to match it with borrowing--all because of those arcane and archaic rules that they could remove with a stroke of a pen if they chose to.  That is, IF they actually chose to.

So where do our tax dollars actually go then?  Well, one could argue that those dollars are effectively taken out of the economy and needlessly destroyed.  And yes, some of those dollars are ultimately destroyed in practice if not in theory.  But it is worse than that, for at least at some point before destruction, they first have to make a pit stop at the privately-owned FERAL Reserve, where they do little more than further enrich the bankster oligarchs.  Again, all because of those arcane and archaic rules.

And that big, scary number that we see on the National Debt Clock?  Well, nowadays the national debt is literally just an accounting gimmick.  What it really consists of are deposits in federal Treasury security accounts, not debt in the way that private debt is.  Effectively, it is really a national savings account, and so-called "deficit" spending is simply when the government puts more money into the economy (via spending) than it takes out (via taxes and fees).  Thus, a deficit for the federal budget is actually a surplus for the rest of the economy, and vice-versa.

Of course, Rodger Mitchell has an even better, more fundamental idea that makes it so the government would never need to borrow a single penny ever again, and it doesn't require raising taxes OR cutting spending.  Not only that, but it would guarantee that Social Security and Medicare, and any other program, would remain fully funded indefinitely as well without the use of FICA taxes (or any other tax for that matter).  The solution, in his exact words:

The best way is to eliminate the federal budget deficit and debt: Ending government borrowing. The government has the unlimited ability to create and spend money without borrowing. The process will be: 

1) Congress will create an account called "Money." 

2) Congress will determine how much money this account contains. The process will be similar to the way Congress now determines the debt ceiling. 

3) Federal agencies will write checks against this account according to budgets decided by Congress. If any federal agency needed additional funds, Congress would decide whether or not to allow this spending, in the same way that Congress votes for additional spending by the military et al. 

This would eliminate concerns about "our grandchildren paying for the federal debt." There would be no federal debt.

And as long as such money were created without any interest or related fees attached to its creation (as per Ellen Brown), such a solution would actually work.  Modern Monetary Theory indeed supports such an idea.  Congress can already spend money into existence rather than lend it into existence, all they would have to do now is officially decouple such spending from taxes and Treasury securities.  (And since he mentioned the debt ceiling, that is another thing we should really get rid of as well in the meantime, since it does far more harm than good.)

Before that, there actually is a painless (albeit unconventional) method of paying off the existing debt in one fell swoop.  Not just this year's deficit, but ALL of the cumulative $21 trillion of the debt. It's called the Noble Solution (named after its creator, Richard E. Noble) and does not involve any significant tax hikes or spending cuts. So what is it? It's something we never would have advocated just a few years ago:  printing (electronically creating) money out of thin air to pay it off all at once.  After all, FERAL Reserve has been creating money out of thin air for decades now (including that recent whopping $16 trillion secret bailout of the banks, which eventually rose to nearly $30 trillion) so we might as well put this practice to productive use.  Money is really nothing more than an accounting entry nowadays, so let's make the entry and be done with it for good.

But wouldn't that lead to hyperinflation?  In a word, NO.  Noble points out that while creating such money is undoubtedly inflationary, using it to pay off the debt (which is in Treasury bonds and is thus already part of the money supply) would be deflationary in that it would shrink the money supply by an equal amount. Thus, the two effects would cancel each other out, as paper (electronic data) would be exchanged for paper (data).   Besides, inflation and hyperinflation is NOT caused by money creation, but rather by shortages of food and/or energy, leading to reverse causation.  Of course, we would have to bypass the FERAL Reserve to avoid creating more debt in the process, such as #MintTheCoin. Or better yet, nationalize the FERAL Reserve entirely and return the power of money creation to its rightful owners, our elected representatives in Congress and the Department of the Treasury.  America would then be "free and clear" for the first time in history since Thomas Jefferson.  And it would cost us NOTHING.

Not like it really matters, since as we already noted, the "debt" is not even really debt at all, but simply deposits in Treasury securities.  And as Mitchell notes, since the federal government has infinite money, it does not actually touch those deposits at all, but simply returns the existing money in those accounts to the account holders by transferring it, while adding newly-created interest dollars to whatever amount is there.  Thus, to "pay off" / extinguish the debt completely, the only new money that needs to be created is the interest, and that new money will stimulate the economy.  You read that right.

Alternatively, Joseph M. Firestone points out that the very same effect can also be had more gradually, with Congress passing an Act (such as the very next budget or appropriations bill) that removes those arcane and archaic rules entirely, and mandates/guarantees than any new deficits as well as any outstanding Treasury securities (i.e. national debt) be funded / paid for automatically with the very same ad hoc money creation that they already do in practice, but no longer needing to match it with new borrowing or tax revenues.  Thus, the federal government would no longer need to borrow even one penny (i.e. issue any new Treasury securities) unless they truly wanted to for reasons unrelated to the federal budget.  And according to Rodger Mitchell, such bonds do, in fact, have other useful, unrelated functions (i.e. providing a safe haven for investors to park their money, and an effective platform for the government to control both short and long-term interest rates, and thus the demand for dollars).  But the point is they would no longer HAVE to do so just to meet their current and future fiscal obligations, so the national debt would stop increasing and gradually decrease as any existing  Treasury securities mature and/or are redeemed. And thus the 100% contrived political issue (and cudgel) that is the national debt / deficit would quickly become a dead issue, and we can finally focus on other, real priorities for a change.

You know, things like Universal Basic Income, Medicare For All, free college, improvements to education, rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, and stuff like that.  All of which can be readily "paid for" with the stroke of a pen and the click of a computer key.   No taxes or borrowing required.  And if the "inflation dragon" ever does happen rear its ugly head again, simply raising interest rates will quash it, as will the practice of draining excess bank reserves and "sterilizing" cash inflows at the FERAL Reserve (which again, really should be nationalized to to become truly FEDERAL) when the newly-created dollars pass through many hands and then the banks and make an inevitable pit stop there.  Problem solved.  And any inflation that is driven by food and energy shortages can be resolved by simply redirecting federal spending to incentivize the producers of such to produce more, by buying such products at a premium and selling (or giving them away) at a loss.  Hey, it's infinite money, remember?

So what are we waiting for?

Interest Rates: A Razor-Sharp, Double-Edged Sword

After debunking the Big Lie of Economics (namely, that federal taxes actually pay for federal spending and that the federal government can somehow run short of dollars) in our previous post, the question of inflation and how to control it remains.  Most economists (including Rodger Malcolm Mitchell) believe that raising interest rates is the best way to do control inflation, while others (mainly in the Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) school of economics, along with Ellen Brown) believe that doing so is practically blasphemy and will only make things worse, relying instead on taxes of various kinds (if anything at all) to control it, albeit crudely.  So which is it?

Well, it seems that the answer is a lot more nuanced than either side likes to believe.  For starters, there are at least two different kinds of inflation: 1) cost-push inflation, and 2) demand-pull inflation.  Sometimes both types occur together almost equally, other times one clearly outweighs or excludes the other.  And whether raising interest rates is helpful or harmful depends on exactly which kind of inflation one is trying to fight.

For cost-push inflation, which is caused by rising production costs resulting from things like higher fuel prices, taxes, or borrowing costs on businesses that get passed onto consumers.  And raising interest rates will only make that kind of inflation worse by increasing borrowing costs for businesses even higher still.  Doing so is like fighting fire with gasoline, and should generally be avoided like the plague.

For demand-pull inflation, which is caused by demand for goods and services outstripping supply for same, on the other hand, raising interest rates is highly effective at preventing and curing such inflation.  If interest rates are (artificially) coupled to money supply, raising the former will effectively shrink the latter, which is of course disinflationary or deflationary.  But even more importantly, whether they are coupled to the money supply or not, raising interest rates also increases the demand for dollars by increasing the reward for holding them.  Remember, as Rodger Mitchell explains, Value = Demand/Supply, and Demand = Reward/Risk, where inflation and default are the risks and interest is the reward.

(Since the risk of default is by definition zero for a Monetarily Sovereign government that consistently acts like it and is not foolish enough to borrow money denominated in a foreign currency, that leaves only inflation vs. interest.  And the net reward is given by:  Interest Rate - Inflation Rate = Real Cost of Money.)

Note too that interest rates can have both types effects, but which one outweighs the other depends on the type of inflation as well as the general condition of the overall economy.  At the same time, the effects of raising and lowering interest rates need not be symmetrical, since lowering interest rates to stimulate the economy often amounts to "pushing on a string" in terms of effectiveness.  Especially since interest on Treasury securities is literally new money that is pumped into the economy, and lowering rates will reduce that money accordingly.  True, there is in fact a positive correlation between the effective Fed Funds Rate and the CPI inflation rate, but that is as much of a chicken-and-egg problem as anything, given that the two types of inflation are both measured the same way, and that the FERAL Reserve usually raises rates in response to or in anticipation of inflation.  (For all their faults, they have generally succeeded in keeping inflation more or less under control at least since the post-gold standard era.)

But how exactly does one distininguish which type of inflation predominates at a given time, and thus whether to raise or lower interest rates?  Usually it is fairly simple.  When the velocity of money (the rate at which money circulates through the economy) is going "too fast for conditions" relative to the economy, that is a fairly strong indicator that demand-pull inflation predominates and that interest rates ought to be raised, even if there is some cost-push inflation mixed into the overall inflation rate.  But if the velocity of money is sluggish, raising rates will likely be counterproductive, at least in the absence of massive deficit spending (i.e. new money creation).

Because regardless of whether or not there is any link at all between interest rates and the actual supply of money, raising rates (especially when raised higher than the inflation rate) will always slow down the velocity of money, ceteris paribus.  Likewise, cutting interest rates accelerates the velocity of money at least somewhat, even if that alone doesn't always stimulate the economy enough in practice.

So what about taxes, then?  In theory, raising taxes and/or cutting government spending should also control inflation by effectively shrinking the money supply.  Remember, since the federal government is Monetarily Sovereign, any tax revenue they raise is effectively destroyed in practice (just like how all deficit spending effectively creates money out of thin air).  But this is a very crude way to do it, and is too slow and political to be particularly useful.  That said, having some level of federal taxation can indeed act as an "automatic stabilizer" even with no changes to the tax code, since when the economy overheats, the velocity of money is high and thus more tax revenue is removed from the economy, while the reverse is true during recessions when the the velocity of money is slower.  That is especially true for the idea of the Universal Exchange Tax, since it specifically taxes the movement of money, but can be true for all taxes.  But interest rate control is ultimately a superior method--as long as the inflation in question is the demand-pull variety resulting from an excessive money supply and/or velocity of money.  And knowing that, there is no good reason why a Monetarily Sovereign government should be shy about creating enough money to fulfill any of its ambitions that benefit the the bottom 99%.

The best, of course, is when interest is NOT coupled to the creation of money.  But until they end the charade and implement Overt Congressional Funding instead, and also fully nationalize the FERAL Reserve, the best way to fight stagflation is to raise interest rates (to fight inflation) while also increasing deficit spending (to fight stagnation), effectively decoupling the two for the time being.  And to fight high inflation in an overheating economy, raise interest rates first with no changes to deficit spending, and if that doesn't work, then reduce deficit spending.  But don't keep interest rates too high for too long--eventually they need to be cut to avoid doing more harm than good to the economy.  And note also that there is no historical correlation between deficit spending and inflation, at least not during peacetime and post-gold standard.  Only during truly major wars has there been any sort of correlation between the two, given how wars tend to create shortages of goods and services.

Wait, what?  That's right, there has been no correlation between federal deficit spending (i.e. money creation) and inflation in recent decades, meaning that any relationship between the money supply per se and inflation is a very tenuous one.  Let that sink in for a moment.  So we are nowhere near the point where increasing the money supply poses any risk of runaway inflation.  And even if we were, we know precisely how to prevent and cure it.

In other words, it looks like both Rodger Mitchell and Ellen Brown are both correct to one degree or another.  But what about what the FERAL Reserve is doing right now, raising interest rates (and implementing Quantitative Tightening) in the midst of historically high deficit spending?  Well, seeing as how inflation is still low and currently dominated by oil prices and the Trump tariffs that are just beginning to bite, it is safe to say that cost-push inflation, not demand-pull inflation, thus predominates now and in the near future, and thus raising interest rates any further now is probably not the wisest idea.  Especially given that, as Ellen Brown notes, the banksters have currently set a minefield of trigger points for variable-rate loans and mortgages, that will be set off if the Fed Funds Rate goes up much higher.  And these oligarchs thus stand to pull off one of the greatest wealth transfers in history, from the bottom 99% to the top 1% and especially the top 0.01% (i.e. to the oligarchs themselves).

Bottom line:  While taxes are more of a blunt instrument when used to control inflation, interest rates are essentially a razor-sharp, double-edged sword, one that we need to be very careful about using willy-nilly.  Don't say we didn't warn you.

How to Prepare for the Next Big Crash (Part Deux)

As we have noted before, things are really not looking good for the global economy this year.  Whether we actually experience another financial crisis on the order of 2008 or even 1929 (or worse) is a matter of debate, but the time to prepare for such a scenario is yesterday.  At the very least, another recession is inevitable at this point by 2019 at the very latest, since no economic expansion has lasted much more than eight years straight in this country (with the notable exception of 1991-2001 that lasted exactly ten years).  Granted, the expansion from July 2009 to the present mostly benefited the rich, and until around 2014 practically entirely benefited the rich, but it was still technically an expansion of the economy even if the growth was largely uneconomic in practice.  And expansions can only go on so long before a contraction (i.e. recession or depression) inevitably occurs--it's just a fundamental truth of the business cycle.

One thing is for sure--things are very different this time around at least in terms of monetary policy.  At least in 2008, interest rates were well above-zero, and could be cut to stimulate the economy (or, more accurately, stop or slow down the hemorrhaging).  When that proved to be futile, then the Feral Reserve and many of the world's other major central banks resorted to "quantitative easing" (i.e. creating money out of thin air and giving it to the banks directly).  In late 2014, the USA tapered off and ended its QE policy, and in December 2015 ended its zero interest-rate policy by raising the Fed Funds Rate to 0.25-0.50%.  Since then, the FERAL Reserve has raised rates five more times, most recently on March 21, 2018 to 1.50-1.75%, and many more hikes are on their way.  And combined with Trump's new trade war against China, that may have been enough to finally lance the massive bubble--make that the festering BOIL--that the stock market has been in for years now.  And since they now have a little bit of room to cut it--if they don't wait too long to do so--they probably seriously think that they can somehow engineer a soft landing if (and that's a VERY big "if") that is even possible at this point.  But not much room, really.

But many of the central banks of the world are still starting from zero or close to zero--and some banks including the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan have even resorted to negative interest rates (!) by 2016.  That means they are effectively charging depositors for the "privilege" of depositing money, and effectively paying borrowers to borrow money, which basically turns the world of finance upside-down.  Such negative rate territory is uncharted waters, since until a few years ago no country has ever dared to do such a thing.  And there is currently no evidence to suggest that such a move will be beneficial in the long run, and may in fact turn out to do more harm than good overall.

So monetary policy basically needs a new set of tools and a new game plan to deal with the next crisis, whenever it occurs.  The Feral Reserve and the other central banks of the world are basically still using an outdated playbook.  In the near-term, two things need to change yesterday.  First of all, they need to abandon interest-rate targets altogether for the time being, and instead focus on targeting the growth of the overall economy.  Like Paul Volcker did in 1979-1982, but done in reverse since the "inflation dragon" is not the problem this time (unless the Trump tariffs really begin to bite). Secondly, implement Quantitiative Easing for We the People in general (as opposed to the banks, which only benefits the ultra-rich) by injecting newly-created money into everyone's bank accounts.  Granted, the latter measure would probably require an Act of Congress to allow it to occur legally, but as the Feral Reserve was just two years ago seriously debating the legality of negative interest rates, I'm sure they could find some sort of a loophole to allow it in an emergency such as a massive financial crisis.  And of course fiscal stimulus would likely be necessary as well, in additional to much needed reforms to regulate Wall Street and the big banks (a law that rhymes with "brass seagull" comes to mind, as well as a financial transactions tax and better regulation of the shadow banking system), but those two changes to monetary policy would go a long way towards preventing the next recession/crisis from turning into another 2008 or 1929 or even worse.  And the silly idea of negative interest rates really needs to be abandoned as well.

More fundamentally, of course, we need to nationalize the FERAL Reserve to make it a truly public national bank that creates money interest-free, and take the power back from the big banks.  Ellen Brown has written books about that very subject.  In the meantime, though, the aforementioned recommendations would still work in the near term.

But let's be brutally honest here.  What we are really witnessing these days is the slow and painful death of a woefully obsolete system, one that has been kept on life support for many years now.  And eventually we will have to pull the plug on it, sooner or later.  It's just a matter of time.

How to Prepare for the Next Big Crash

As we have noted in the previous article, the risk of the next big economic crash continues to loom larger than ever before, and it is most likely too late to actually prevent it from occurring entirely.  That's not to say that there aren't things that should be done to prepare for it to make it less catastrophic, though.  Back in 2014, the TSAP had predicted that a crash would occur within a few short years, and we had written an article then discussing how to prevent it before it occurs or at least take the edge off of it, while ending the previous economic "stagpression" for good.  We also reiterated such ideas in 2016 as well, the year for which the insightful Thom Hartmann predicted the epic crash that was his book's namesake.  (Being off by two years or so is still fairly accurate in our book.)  And we should note that these things would indeed help take the edge off of the next looming financial crisis as well.

Two things come to mind right away:  1) a Universal Basic Income Guarantee for all, an idea that is LONG overdue, and 2) Quantitiative Easing for We the People in general (as opposed to the banks, which only benefits the ultra-rich) by injecting newly-created money directly into everyone's bank accounts and/or via debit card.  Additionally, we need to better regulate the Wall Street casino so such a crisis could never, EVER happen again, and also JAIL the banksters who caused the crisis (instead of bailing them out) like Iceland did.  A complete debt jubilee would be even better still (in general, but especially for student loans), but even the things we just mentioned are a fairly tall order for a government who is bought and paid for by the banksters/oligarchs.  While other things need to be done as well in the long run, such as critical investments in infrastructure and education, the aforementioned measures would go a long way towards fixing our soon-to-be-ailing economy.

Those are the things that should be done at the government level, of course.  At the individual level, there is really not much one can do except get OUT of the stock market while you still can, and take at least most of your money OUT of the big banks (before the "bail-ins" begin) and put it into smaller banks, credit unions, or even under your mattress.  Or even in a big, brown bag inside a zoo (what a thing to do!)