Yves here. We’ve been warning for some time that the inflation we are suffering now is due to Covid-induced supply chain breakages, Russia sanctions blowback leading to high energy and commodity prices, and droughts and high heat wrecking crop yields. Labor does not have bargaining power, witness among other things falling real wages and continued record corporate profit share of GDP. But the Fed thinks its job is to break glass and kill demand, as in jobs.
By Jake Johnson. Originally published at Common Dreams
The newly released minutes of the Federal Reserve’s July meeting indicate that U.S. central bank officials have no plans to deviate from aggressive interest rate hikes as they attempt to tamp down high inflation, a policy response that one economist characterized as a commitment to “unleashing mass unemployment.”
“We have a supply-side problem, but rather than trying to restore or raise supply-side capacity the Fed is aiming to push demand down to the level where supply is currently constrained by pandemic, war, and climate crises,” notedAdam Hersh, a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute.
Published Wednesday, the minutes of the Fed’s July 26-27 policy meeting show that the nation’s central bankers believed at the time that “there was little evidence to date that inflation pressures were subsiding,” reporting that “their business contacts remained concerned about persistently high inflation.”
Fed officials expressed their view on inflationary trends prior to the latest Consumer Price Index (CPI) reading, which suggested that price surges—a problem hardly limited to the U.S.—have cooled slightly while remaining near a four-decade high of 8.5% year over year.
“They judged that inflation would respond to monetary policy tightening and the associated moderation in economic activity with a delay and would likely stay uncomfortably high for some time,” the minutes read. “Participants also observed that in some product categories, the rate of price increase could well pick up further in the short run, with sizable additional increases in residential rental expenses being especially likely.”
While conceding that “supply bottlenecks were continuing to contribute to price pressures,” Fed officials signaled they will stay the course with rate increases aimed at suppressing economic demand, an approach they acknowledged would likely cause higher unemployment. The Fed’s next policy meeting is in September, when another large rate hike is expected even amid evidence of moderating prices as well as slowing economic and wage growth.
“Participants observed that, in part because of tighter financial conditions and an associated moderation in the growth of aggregate demand, growth in employment would likely slow further in the period ahead,” according to the minutes. “They noted that this development would help bring labor demand and supply into better balance, reducing upward pressures on nominal wage growth and aiding the return of inflation to 2%.”
“Participants remarked that a moderation in labor market conditions would likely involve a decline in the number of job openings as well as a moderate increase in unemployment from the current very low rate,” the minutes continue, noting that officials admitted the risk of hiking interest rates “by more than necessary to restore price stability.”
Fedspeak for unleashing mass unemployment: "Minutes of the Federal Open Market Committee July 26–27, 2022"https://t.co/edHQraVEvs pic.twitter.com/iLmvIKK2QQ
— Adam Hersh (@adamshersh) August 17, 2022
To progressive economists and other analysts, the Fed is flirting with disaster.
In an op-ed for The Guardian on Wednesday, Isabella Weber of the University of Massachusetts Amherst and Mark Paul of Rutgers University observed that “the current inflation situation hasn’t been about all goods in the economy getting more expensive at the same rate.”
“Specific goods—food, fuel, cars, and housing—have been experiencing massive price shocks, raising the general inflation level substantially,” they wrote. “Controlling these changes would require aggregate demand to shrink to unbearable levels for average Americans—essentially making people too poor to buy goods, and thus alleviating bottlenecks. Rate hikes are not only ill-suited to bring down these essential prices but risk a recession throwing millions out of work.”
As an alternative strategy for fighting inflation, Weber and Paul make the case for “targeted price stabilization measures including price controls to limit price increases in systemically significant goods and services: gas, housing, food, electricity, etc.”
“Contrary to conventional wisdom, price controls have a rather successful history in the U.S. when used right, and, while not a magic bullet, they are a powerful tool to tame inflation and protect low- and middle-income Americans,” they note. “This is particularly true when market power—be it from landlords, oil companies, or meat cartels—is at play.”
Weber and Paul specifically express support for Rep. Jamaal Bowman’s (D-N.Y.) recently introduced Emergency Price Stabilization Act, legislation that would establish a White House task force to “proactively investigate corporate profiteering” and propose “measures to ensure adequate supply of relevant goods and services, expand productive capacity, and meet climate and public health standards in the application of any price controls or regulations.”
In an August 4 statement unveiling his bill, Bowman said that “we cannot simply step back and allow the Federal Reserve, which hiked interest rates again last week, to address inflation on the backs of everyday people.”
“That approach means throwing people out of work and risking a recession,” Bowman warned. “Here is the question we must ask: do we have the resources and skills to reach our full productive capacity, make sure everyone in this country has a good job, and manage our economy in the interests of all people? I believe the answer is yes.”
“But we’ll need a new economic playbook to get there,” he added, “and passing my Emergency Price Stabilization Act would be a major step in the right direction.”
60 comments
Comments are closed.
The whipping will continue until morale improves.
All I can say is how great it is to have that crack team of brilliant minds on the case like Janet Yellen and Mayo Pete. We can’t lose. /s
By the way, I sure hope that everyone saved all that stimulus money as you’ll need it. :(
I’m still waiting for the final $600 USD installment of that cheque. I definitely did not approve of my $600 USD being sent to the Ukraine to help Vikky Neuland get her family estates back.
Haven’t you heard of The Promised Land? It’s big with certain religions.
We was promised $600 weren’t we? I keep forgetting that part, promises kept and all.
Democrats have not flinched, have not given in. Wasn’t that the quote from a WC article yesterday afternoon? \sarc but real
I used J.G. Wentworth and got $231 of the promised $600…
‘It’s Your Money!’
Oh man! Remind me to short JB Wentworth at the next High Sierras Investment Club meeting!
To the unlanded, they mean.
Perfect time for Pentagon to run some recruitment drives in order to bolster its ranks ahead of fighting a war in both Europe and Asia (again).
Sun Tzu:
“The people sleep securely knowing that Emma has two moms”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kfe6d6MzeLM
Army Recruitment Ads: China vs Russia vs USA
The root of our Fed problem is the mythology that the Fed can adjust the economy. In fact any Fed action is pushing on, if not a string, then a very weak spring. Then, using the logic that “something must be done; this is something: we must do it”, the Fed takes an action which, while having some effect on the economy, has worse side effects. The side effect of “curing covid deflation” was an explosion of asset prices. The side effect of “curing today’s inflation will be recession.
In fact, it was fiscal policy that mitigated the covid deflation; and only fiscal policy (substantial progressive tax increases) can mitigate supply inflation without serious side effects.
For any economist to believe an administration that has displayed so massive incompetence in exiting Afghanistan, allowing their corporate ‘owners’ to rape the public, handling the Ukraine situation, mishandling Covid 19 lock downs, deploying FBI to raid an ex-President’s home, not communicating almost anything in understanding terms to the American Public…you think the American Public would stand still for more incompetence in enacting price controls? Really?
Incompetence of elected representatives doesn’t change the correct locus of economic control as fiscal policy — in fact, it’s precisely the sale of this fear which has given us 40+ years of atrocious monetary dominance.
Are you seriously proposing that we welcome more of the same, larry?
No thanks.
Central bank ideology in a nutshell:
When there is to little money, more must be given to the rich.
When there is to much money, more must be taken from the poor.
Rince and repeat.
To make sure fiscal policy doesn’t interfere with the wealth transfer to the rich, balanced budget amendments and such are proposed, Because, you are right on the fiscal side, and also in general, I think. When there is to little money, it is the poor that needs it (and quickly turns it into demand).
And the problem of inflation is often a problem of to little of something and to much price gouging (and not really to much money). Preventing price gouging and increasing the key resources people need often means government stearing the economy, which moves planning power from Wall Street.
Essentially, it comes down to Kalecki’s observation that though government spending to the poor makes the rich richer, it also makes them less powerful, which they will fight with everything they got.
They believe in that mythology because they are used to dealing with USA as a manufacturing economy, and thus have zip all idea of how to deal with a imports shortage.
If anything, USA is now experiencing the kind of situation they are used to forcing on others, like say Venezuela, via sanctions etc.
I do not understand the structure of the economy as it exists in the u.s. today. What I do understand or think I understand about the economy suggests the Fed policies for controlling ‘inflation’– whatever that means given what I believe is a very squishy definition for and worse measures for estimating ‘inflation’ — those Fed policies will have unknown and probably surprising impacts and effects.
The two main policies for influencing the economy, Fiscal and Monetary policy are based on an understanding of the economy that I believe no longer represents the present economy. Fiscal policy has been all but eliminated as a tool for controlling the economy, at best it is treated as a collateral impact of government, business, or consumer spending. But suppose the government spends into the economy to stimulate the economy. How does that stimulus increase demand or employment or inflation and where do the impacts occur? In the present economy, I wonder whether the greatest employment impacts might be in employment and demand in China or some other locale of the Global Economy — echoing your comment. I wonder whether the spending may increase inflation, no matter what employment or capital slack might exist in the u.s. economy, and I believe much of the inflation occurs in the expanding markups, hence profit margins of whatever cartels control the sectors where the spending makes its demands.
I believe the rationale for Monetary policy — assuming the most naively generous interpretation of the motives and intent driving its creators, proponents, and implementers — is dubious. Suppose the Fed increases the interest rates — whose demand and employment will be impacted, where, and how will the increase in interest rates impact inflation? Who borrows money and for what purposes do they borrow? We have an economy where the Fed has already delivered a considerable boost to the balance sheets of banks and investment companies, an economy where little-nothing has been done to reign in Corporate Raids, share buy-backs, the creation of investment ‘innovations’, consolidation of the economy, or creative loan policies and means to alienate risk through selling them to the clueless and trusting. We have an economy where measures of ‘inflation’, ‘unemployment’ and ‘growth’ are so tweaked to obscure the values of the variables they claim to measure they mean whatever might be desired.
The way I get it (per Jack Rasmus) is speculators (I assume buying futures) knew the Covid impact Yves mentioned was coming, and the sanctions with an even more sudden/blunt wallop? Shortages-due-to-sanctions they knew were coming. They saw the trend; so even if the shortages hadn’t hit yet 1)the shortages would inevitably drive up prices (gasoline…ripple effect?) 2)the public vaguely suspected this 3)since the public suspected it, there would be no untangling of where the speculation was the cause, and then later where the actual shortages kicked in and augmented the trend (that speculators had mostly started themselves).
It seems like I’m typing this to get it clear to myself, and that you for sure knew every bit of it. But, if I missed a step, let me know.
I think you made a great theoretical start (last paragraph is helpful for keeping what’s important in mind). I go with a real naive principle! Everything of value in an economy should be represented in the amt of currency out there according to what it’s worth. If “new money” (loans) only aim to create a things of value that end up crocks [even if it’s quite possible the projects will end up completed (say if it were the case with the wall)]…then how are you gonna pay the interest on the bonds, or even payback the principle?
Gov subsidizes the agribiz farmer. S/he grows X amt of GMO crops. So there the anticipated future value materializes. But there also must be more new money injected in terms of profit brought into the economy. So the crop’s exported. But wait…the demand for GMO crops falls off! Hence, possibly part of Mark Sleboda’s prediction makes sense, though multipolar would be better than bipolar (Roundtable #11).
My admittedly highly cynical take is that there is a geopolitical angle here. The banksters have had their eyes on global control through finance for many many years. Is it possible that this is one of those “we had to destroy the village to save it” situations…attack china and russia by destroying demand in the US, thus (hopefully, from the bankster perspective) “capping” crude prices so russia makes less money, crashing europe to destroy the social safety net and unions (no working examples can be allowed) and causing recession and (hopefully, from the banksters perspective) causing social unrest weakening china and (hopefully, from the banksters perspective) presenting more opportunity for disruptions both military and economic upon which the putative “west” (really just a bunch of psycho globalist goons) can make lots and lots moar money with the added benefit of being able to kick down and asserting/assuring their dominance, the latter being their only real source of self esteem.
YMMV…
USA is a crumbling colonial power. It took over much of the holdings of France and UK after WW2, and have been leaning ever harder on those. In particular after Reaganomics and the rush to offshore manufacturing.
Plus sucking the travelling dollars from other parts of the world, including and especially China towards the US financial system…
IIRC, in Stephanie Kelton’s The Deficit Myth, it is noted that unemployment is regarded by the Fed not as a macroeconomic outcome (which it ought to be regarded to be in view of the statutory dual mandate), but as a policy instrument (for control of the priority macro outcome of inflation). She put it more compactly than that, and it was chilling to read and realize that this is “the way it is.”
“Specific goods—food, fuel, cars, and housing—have been experiencing massive price shocks, raising the general inflation level substantially,”
Specific goods: food, fuel & cars. Add in medical costs and the Feds prescription appears to be, “people starving and dying in the streets are necessary to control inflation.”
And, of course, people dying in mass at nursing homes and in ICUs have been a growth engine and profit center for the last two years. Until some kind of feedback reaches these people, say houses on fire per Sri Lanka, why would they change course?
Our recent anecdotal experience sure seems to indicate a shortage of cars being the cause of the price inflation. The clutch on ours went out a few days ago. (Side note: we tried calling AAA and they just never came, leaving my wife stranded for hours. It wasn’t due to them being overly busy – they no longer had any drivers willing to pick up for AAA. Much like the airlines recently, they collect the fees without telling you the actual service is no longer available. Just more crapification. When my wife called a tow company directly, they were there in 10 minutes. And we had to pay $120 cash, on top of the $$$ we’d already paid to AAA for zero service – we won’t be renewing that relationship.)
Our mechanic who is usually able to do repairs in a couple days said it might be mid-September before he could fix the car. Not exactly sure why – could be people are opting to have older vehicles fixed due to the exorbitant prices of used cars. There were no rental cars available the day of the breakdown. The next day we found available rentals – at $200+ per day. That was recently the weekly price for a small rental in our area. It seems that the rental companies who sold off their fleets during the pandemic now don’t have enough cars. Tried a dealership rather than our normal mechanic and they wouldn’t give a time frame for repairs and tried selling us a new car instead, so we declined to go with them given their already poor reputation.
Good thing we have decent public transportation in our area.
We insure our car with All State.
Battery died on me last week and their guy with a charge showed up in about an hour.
We were in Brooklyn so not quick, but no charge.
As Lambert said years ago.
1 Because markets
2 Go die
Sounds to me that Jamal Bowman has a hold of the right end of the rope.
Housing: Doesn’t private equity have a huge stake in residential housing? How is that working out for anyone but folks like Stephen Schwartzman?
Fuel: Did I not hear a boast a few years ago that the US was self-sufficient?
Cars: Drive what you have and drive as little as possible
Stoller’s been pretty good on this.
Profits are at record highs and despite Covid and the war are staying that way.
Market power in housing, fuel, health & food is being used to first jack the price when there’s a shock, but then not drop it, or at least not drop it in line with supply price declines as commodities loosen up. So we have the worst of both worlds, the Crassus Fire Brigade has taken over the whole economy, and arson has been deregulated.
Raising interest rates supports the dollar relative to other currencies. What other choice does the US have as the world de-dollarizes?
Is it too soon to start asking, “Who lost the petrodollar?” I’m tempted to blame Obama for the way he handled the 2008 financial crisis, but freezing Russian assets in the West and shutting it out of SWIFT does seem like the proximate cause.
The foreign policy angle is interesting. Could raising interest rates be as much about helping the EU cope with the Ukraine sanctions as fighting inflation in the U.S.?
Biden said “Whatever it takes” and “Americans will have to make sacrifices” (or something to that effect) about defeating Russia in Ukraine. That may well include a Fed-engineered recession.
The dollar is at sky-high levels. There’s zero evidence of de-dollarizaton.
Setting up regional trade blocs when no one wants to run chronic trade deficits to get currency circulating among them is easier said than done. It took over two generations and two world wars for the dollar to displace sterling.
I have heard that China spends a lot of money on the Belt and Road Initiative by making dollar loans that probably won’t be repaid. Isn’t that evidence of de-dollarization?
I think I see where you are coming from; much like a medical doctor who discounts all anecdotal evidence as essentially meaningless unless the macro numbers “prove” something. Well maybe so but that approach could result in professional blind spots just as limiting as with the evidence-based medicine types.
Robert
Actually, China’s use of the global reserve currency to finance their B&R initiative seems more an affirmation of the dollar’s status than a “de-dollarization.”
When all you have is a toolbox full of hammers, everything looks like a nail.
But acts like a thumb
Drop sanctions against Russia, Iran, Venezuela and drop tariffs against China and see inflation fall. Or, “bring labor supply and demand into better balance” by causing unemployment. Which to choose, which to choose…
If I had a boring, purely repetitive job, which paid a lot and then dished out a good pension and the respect of my peers, I wouldn’t change my tune.
I’d have to mull and quell my regrets at how I got her thoughI agree this is a supply-side issue. But the deindustrialization of the US means that the US can’t in the short-run easily boost supply.
I’m most familiar with the production of certain large industrial objects and housing. In housing, the increase in US population (in 1970 the “no immigration” prediction was a steady-state of 200-225 million people not the present 340 million-and-climbing) has run up against a stable supply of wood, copper and concrete (plus of course NIMBY). Increased demand and stable supply = price rise. We can import wood and copper but the world price has also gone up, so there is not much the Fed can do to “boost supply” without increasing imports, prices and costs.
It is no accident that resouce rich and relatively underpopulated democratic countries like Finland, Norway, Canada and Australia have high living standards while densely populated countries with few resources/person like Germany, Great Britain (and now the US) are suffering. Note that resource-rich Russia for all its problems of governance and trade embargoes will have a nice, comfortable winter with little discontent.
The Fed can change interest rates but not the underlying demographic and resource reality.
The Fed is currently hurting the supply issue with the interest rate hikes. The ability to build new plants, or expand current ones, so that we have more supply is limited by capital expenditures. The more the interest rate increases, the more expensive loans become, the less likely we’ll see people start projects to expand capacity. It’s not like people in other countries get off any easier. A lot of countries and foreign companies have loans they need to pay back in US$. The higher the interest rate, the more expensive dollars become, the harder it is for them to pay back the loans, and the less likely it is they can support new projects to expand capacity.
The current Fed approach is insane. They’d do less damage to the world if we gave Powell a gun and had him start killing citizens to reduce demand by eliminating the population. What I can’t understand is he seems to know this! He’s admitted during questioning that this policy won’t help. So why are we doing it????
The Prime Directive of the Ruling Class:
Whacker discipline those workers!Time to take away the self-assumed powers of the Fed, the unitary presidency, the Supreme Court (“ a court of limited jurisdiction” per my Con Law prof), the Parliamentarian (of a nominal representative legislature), and all that.
There is precedent for wage and price controls. That infamous Arch Communist Dick Nixon, (let the two minutes hate begin, now!) Whew! With that out of the way, that old commie Nixon imposed wage and price controls back in 1971.
Nixon actually did a few paradigm changing policy moves. He took America off of the gold standard in 1971. He had a stimulus cheque sent out. He “normalized” relations with mainland China. In short, he was a real President. Despite his faults, Richard Nixon is head and shoulders above the politicos we have today. That’s saying a lot.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_shock#:~:text=Nixon%20issued%20Executive%20Order%2011615,controls%20since%20World%20War%20II.
And, begrudgingly, I agree.
Right now, I am reading Dwight Chapin’s memoir, The President’s Man. Chapin was one of Nixon’s closest aides, and, I have to say, he still comes across as quite the Nixon fanboy.
OTOH, Nixon did understand that being president involved doing the sorts of things that ambrit just mentioned. There are times when paradigm-changing policy moves are the best option.
Nixon, a huge football fan, always said “Go for the big play” when it came to policy moves. Today’s politicians go for the teensy bit play, and most of the time it’s just PR for the 24 hour news cycle.
To continue with the football metaphor, imagine a game where each team has an unlimited number of “time outs” to sustain tension and enable more advertising breaks, rather than actually play for yardage. That’s politics today. If the players in DC actually execute a play, it’s a surprise, and then it’s always “half a yard and a cloud of dust.”
> it’s always “half a yard and a cloud of dust.”
Except it’s not dust.
It’s cremains …
There’s data that supports the idea that the price controls were starting to work when Nixon dropped them.
… and also signed off on the EPA and the very socialistic FREE dialysis for all. Tricky would be hard pressed to get elected as dogcatcher on any major party today.
To the ordinary citizen, The Fed is not a friend.
Mmm, their business contacts. Would any of these banksters’ contacts then be willing to reconcile their inflation “concerns” with the recorded increase (also reported in the Guardian) in quarterly profits (compared to two years prior, in percent) of BP (+12,005%), Mattel (+111,400%), Amazon (+333%), Albertson’s (+671%), and others?
Per Tom Pfotzer’s comment the other day re Yves’ post, Stagflation: From Tragedy to Farce,
And as Samuel Conner notes above,
In my mind all of this is a variation of whack a mole. If society wishes to tackle the climate crisis (along with preventing ecosystem collapse and even worsening mass extinctions) successfully consumption (demand) must be reduced. However, that will lead to unemployment and hurt the most vulnerable among us, so supply and demand must be maintained. Price controls can be a short term solution while adequate supplies to meet demand are restored. However, in the longer term demand must be reduced unless we don’t care about the climate. So we get to choose from a list of choices. We can’t have them all. How will you choose?
While all this seems true, I would bet my income over a month that this is not what the Feds had on their mind…
Climate comes a distant second to profit and what was seen as normal before COVID upset the apple cart is not coming back and of amount of flailing around to whip labor and Russia and China and anyone else who won’t follow Our, that is the USA’s, the collective West’s rules is going to make it so. The unitary moment is long over. It is necessary to adjust to the developing multi-polar world. It is past time to stop fantasizing and promising steak today and tomorrow. The Fed is following its usual rut. It is much easier to beat the “little people” that actually attempt something that might upset money and privilege.
The federal reserve is not about matching medicine to causative agents; the institution was not created by academics or court justices, but JP Morgan et al. When they act, it is to appease the elite who designed the institution by disciplining those vulnerable to a flogging; it is without regard to just desserts of individuals or of social classes.
The same with the voter fraud conspiracy theories. Everyone knows there isn’t any voter fraud to speak of, least of all in downtown Atlanta, Philadelphia, Detroit, etc.; nonetheless, voter suppression laws are passed b/c of it being necessary to weaken these voters in order for some to win an election.
We are not working with unbiased agents here.
Independent central banks are a part of the architecture of a system designed to disadvantage labour.
A combination of price controls and corporate tax breaks targeted to items price controlled for the duration of the price controls? Perhaps this would also help show taxes are all ways passed on to the price.
We’ll these idiots still believe that labor and capital are the only primary inputs in an economy, of course they wouldn’t understand supply side inflation. They don’t care about actual material or energy inputs. For example they believe that energy companies share of the economy in dollars is its impact of the economy. So when EU looks like it gets a 10% reduction in its overall energy sources they get a garbage number like 2% reduction in GDP. This ignores that energy consumption and GDP are near perfectly correlated…
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-relationship-between-energy-consumption-and-GDP-in-Australia-Source-F-Poldy_fig2_279456258
To clarify I mean FED idiots
I would need to see more global historical examples of price controls that had the intended effect and not unintended price distortion consequences before I would believe they are an effective fiscal tool. Wishful thinking aside, history is littered with far more than two examples of failed price controls.
The Roosevelt example is so far afield from today as to be meaningless. A popular President of a unified populace during wartime conditions is not the environment we live in. The Nixonian example was aborted prior to the logical conclusion. Neither of those two examples can be extrapolated to 2022 USA.
On the one hand we’re talking about a country that worships the wealthy simply because of their wealth, and prosperity gospel is rampant in churches across the land. So getting the population to buy in to a scheme that can be easily painted with the communism brush by the corporate interests who stand to lose just ain’t gonna happen. On the other hand an extremely unpopular President does not command a bully pulpit of much gravitas.
Let’s be honest. Neither D nor R political party, neither in the legislative nor executive branch, is likely to pass such a measure let alone provide an environment for success. Couple that with a Central Bank that is outright hostile to the idea. No possibility of enactment and slim possibility of success even if it cleared such a hurdle.
A bit off topic. I’d sure like to find a source other than the ones I’ve found that relate how Nouripour (German Green Party official) was originally against the Nordstream sanctions. All the weird sites agree with RT on this…and the story has a nature that doesn’t appear to be made up. So strange one can’t even look up such recent history.
Famous words from 1930 which may come to life again under today’s Federal Reserve:
“Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate. It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people.”
Andrew Mellon