Connect with us

Government

Is The Fed At The End Of Its Rope?

Is The Fed At The End Of Its Rope?

Authored by Michael Maharrey via SchiffGold.com,

The Federal Reserve delivered another 75 basis point…

Published

on

Is The Fed At The End Of Its Rope?

Authored by Michael Maharrey via SchiffGold.com,

The Federal Reserve delivered another 75 basis point interest rate hike at its July FOMC meeting. This pushes the federal funds rate over the 2% threshold to between 2.25% and 2.5%.

The mainstream media emphasized the size of the hike. One headline called it “a second super-sized hike,” with many other mainstream pundits noting that it matched a June hike was the biggest since 1994. But it wasn’t as big as the full 1% hike everybody thought was on the table after we got June’s flaming hot Consumer Price Index (CPI) data.

Here’s the question: has the Fed reached the end of its rope? Will this be the last hike in this cycle?

The corporate financial press seems to think the Fed will hike again in September, and the central bank certainly left that impression. The FOMC statement said it “anticipates that ongoing increases in the target range will be appropriate.” Powell said another “unusually large increase” could be appropriate at the September meeting.

But the FOMC state left some wiggle room, saying, “The Committee would be prepared to adjust the stance of monetary policy as appropriate if risks emerge that could impede the attainment of the Committee’s goals.”

In other words, the Fed can stop hiking at any time.

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell left even more space to retreat from the inflation fights, saying there is “significantly” more uncertainty right now than normal and the lack of any clear insight into the future trajectory of the economy means the Fed can only provide reliable policy guidance on a “meeting by meeting” basis.

The markets seemed to interpret the Fed’s stance as more doveish. Stocks were up, as was gold.

The Fed may well need that wiggle room.

With this 75 basis-point hike, interest rates are now equal to the peak of the last hiking cycle in December 2018.

Passant Gardant published a graph that indicates the current interest rate is above the maximum that the economy can handle before plunging into a recession.

As you can see, the peak of the rate hike cycle gets lower and lower with each subsequent tightening. No matter how emphatically Powell insists that the Fed can raise interest rates, slay inflation and bring us to a soft landing, reality says otherwise. There is nothing to lead us to believe that the Fed can get rates to 2% without crashing the bubble economy, much less hike them to 3.5% or 4%. (And that’s not even enough to slay inflation.)

When interest rates reached this level in 2018, the stock market crashed and economic data went wobbly. In response, the Fed reversed course and put tightening on pause. In 2019, it cut rates three times and relaunched quantitative easing (although it refused to call it that.) This all happened long before the extraordinarily loose monetary policy launched in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.

Today, there is even more debt and malinvestment in the economy than there was in 2019. It seems unlikely the Fed can push rates any higher without a complete economic meltdown. And we may already be past that point of no return. Despite claims to the contrary, it appears the US economy is already in a recession and has been all year.

The FOMC conceded that the economy appears to “have softened.” But the committee remains sanguine.

“Nonetheless, job gains have been robust in recent months, and the unemployment rate has remained low,” the FOMC statement said.

During his post-meeting press conference, Powell insisted the economy was not in a recession.

“There are too many areas of the economy that are performing too well. I would point to the very strong labor market. [It is] true that growth is slowing.”

As Peter Schiff noted, the Fed chair apparently picked up its copy of White House talking points declaring that two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth doesn’t mean the economy is in a recession.

“If you think the Fed is independent, today’s press conference should put that myth to rest. Powell clearly got the Biden administration memo that recession is not defined by two consecutive quarters of falling GDP. Powell even said it’s not his job to declare a recession,” Schiff said.

Powell has to downplay the GDP. In the first quarter of 2022, GDP came in at -1.6 percent. The Atlanta Fed projects another -1.2% decline in Q2. Using the common definition, that would mean we’re in a recession now, and we have been all year.

While Powell and others keep saying the economy is strong, the only data they consistently point to is the labor market. But the job market is a lagging indicator and even it looks shaky. As Schiff pointed out during an interview with Laura Ingraham, we’ve seen three straight weeks of increasing first-time jobless claims, and they’re at the highest level since October last year.

Meanwhile, if you look at that last job report, even though we added about 400,000 jobs in the establishment survey, the household survey lost about that many jobs. But if you actually look at the jobs, almost all of these new jobs were for people who already had jobs. These were people taking second and third jobs because they’re struggling to pay the bills. And you have a lot of retirees who are being forced back into the workforce because inflation has eviscerated their incomes, and now they have no choice but to go to work. So, these are not jobs that people want. These are jobs that people are forced to take because the economy is so weak.”

Meanwhile, we’re seeing big pullbacks in the housing market, manufacturing and retail. And the average American isn’t buying the “economy is fine” narrative. Consumer confidence fell to a 19-month low in July.

This is eerily similar to the early days of the 2008 recession when the mainstream media and government officials kept saying everything was fine even as the economy was going up in flames.

No Stomach for This Fight

This economy was built on easy money and debt. It looks like taking away the easy money punch bowl has already popped the bubble. This latest rate hike will only make the rip in the bubble bigger, letting the air out even faster. It’s only a matter of time before the entire house of cards economy collapses.

In reality, this needs to happen. The economy needs a recession to cleanse all of the misallocations and distortions out of the economy. But that would mean a lot of pain. Despite the recent hikes and all of the tough talk, one has to wonder if the Fed has the stomach to follow through with this inflation fight and allow the economy to crash to the ground.

For now, the central bankers at the Fed and the policymakers in DC can try to spin away the recession in the hope that inflation will magically go away before things get really bad, so they can go back to business as usual. By “business as usual,” I mean borrowing and spending and printing money out of thin air.

The trajectory of balance sheet reduction reveals that the Fed doesn’t really have the stomach for this inflation fight.

The FOMC statement claimed that “the Committee will continue reducing its holdings of Treasury securities and agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities, as described in the Plans for Reducing the Size of the Federal Reserve’s Balance Sheet that were issued in May.”

The problem with this statement is that it’s now the end of July and the Fed still isn’t reducing the size of its balance as described by the plan.

The balance sheet peaked in April at $8.966 trillion. Since that time, the Fed has reduced the balance sheet by a mere $66 billion. That’s just 0.74%.

The plan announced in May was for $30 billion in US Treasuries and $17.5 billion in mortgage-backed securities to roll off the balance sheet in June, July and August. That totals $45 billion per month. In September, the Fed plans to increase the pace to $95 billion per month.

At the time, I noted that this wasn’t an impressive balance sheet roll-off given the historically high CPI. At $95 billion per month, it would take 7.8 years for the Fed to shrink its balance sheet back to pre-pandemic levels. And it’s not even keeping pace with its own tepid plan.

If the Fed was really serious about fighting inflation, it would be rapidly shrinking the money supply.

So, the question remains: is the Fed at the end of its rope? And when it inevitably reaches that point will it let go, keep tightening to fight inflation, and take the economy into freefall? Or will it surrender to inflation and pivot back to easy money and quantitative easing, letting inflation run wild in order to rescue the economy?

Tyler Durden Thu, 07/28/2022 - 08:21

Read More

Continue Reading

Spread & Containment

Many CDC Blunders Exaggerated Severity Of COVID-19: Study

Many CDC Blunders Exaggerated Severity Of COVID-19: Study

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Centers…

Published

on

Many CDC Blunders Exaggerated Severity Of COVID-19: Study

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) made at least 25 statistical or numerical errors during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the overwhelming majority exaggerated the severity of the pandemic, according to a new study.

Researchers who have been tracking CDC errors compiled 25 instances where the agency offered demonstrably false information. For each instance, they analyzed whether the error exaggerated or downplayed the severity of COVID-19.

Of the 25 instances, 20 exaggerated the severity, the researchers reported in the study, which was published ahead of peer review on March 23.

The CDC has expressed significant concern about COVID-19 misinformation. In order for the CDC to be a credible source of information, they must improve the accuracy of the data they provide,” the authors wrote.

The CDC did not respond to a request for comment.

Most Errors Involved Children

Most of the errors were about COVID-19’s impact on children.

In mid-2021, for instance, the CDC claimed that 4 percent of the deaths attributed to COVID-19 were kids. The actual percentage was 0.04 percent. The CDC eventually corrected the misinformation, months after being alerted to the issue.

CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky falsely told a White House press briefing in October 2021 that there had been 745 COVID-19 deaths in children, but the actual number, based on CDC death certificate analysis, was 558.

Walensky and other CDC officials also falsely said in 2022 that COVID-19 was a top five cause of death for children, citing a study that gathered CDC data instead of looking at the data directly. The officials have not corrected the false claims.

Other errors include the CDC claiming in 2022 that pediatric COVID-19 hospitalizations were “increasing again” when they’d actually peaked two weeks earlier; CDC officials in 2023 including deaths among infants younger than 6 months old when reporting COVID-19 deaths among children; and Walensky on Feb. 9, 2023, exaggerating the pediatric death toll before Congress.

“These errors suggest the CDC consistently exaggerates the impact of COVID-19 on children,” the authors of the study said.

Read more here...

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/24/2023 - 20:20

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

NIH awards researchers $7.5 million to create data support center for opioid use disorder and pain management research

WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. – March 24, 2023 – Researchers at Wake Forest University School of Medicine have been awarded a five-year, $7.5 million grant…

Published

on

WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. – March 24, 2023 – Researchers at Wake Forest University School of Medicine have been awarded a five-year, $7.5 million grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Helping End Addiction Long-term (HEAL) initiative.

Credit: Wake Forest University School of Medicine

WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. – March 24, 2023 – Researchers at Wake Forest University School of Medicine have been awarded a five-year, $7.5 million grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Helping End Addiction Long-term (HEAL) initiative.

The NIH HEAL initiative, which launched in 2018, was created to find scientific solutions to stem the national opioid and pain public health crises. The funding is part of the HEAL Data 2 Action (HD2A) program, designed to use real-time data to guide actions and change processes toward reducing overdoses and improving opioid use disorder treatment and pain management.

With the support of the grant, researchers will create a data infrastructure support center to assist HD2A innovation projects at other institutions across the country. These innovation projects are designed to address gaps in four areas—prevention, harm reduction, treatment of opioid use disorder and recovery support.

“Our center’s goal is to remove barriers so that solutions can be more streamlined and rapidly distributed,” said Meredith C.B. Adams, M.D., associate professor of anesthesiology, biomedical informatics, physiology and pharmacology, and public health sciences at Wake Forest University School of Medicine.

By monitoring opioid overdoses in real time, researchers will be able to identify trends and gaps in resources in local communities where services are most needed.

“We will collect and analyze data that will inform prevention and treatment services,” Adams said. “We’re shifting chronic pain and opioid care in communities to quickly offer solutions.”

The center will also develop data related resources, education and training related to substance use, pain management and the reduction of opioid overdoses.

According to the CDC, there was a 29% increase in drug overdose deaths in the U.S.  in 2020, and nearly 75% of those deaths involved an opioid.

“Given the scope of the opioid crises, which was only exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, it’s imperative that we improve and create new prevention strategies,” Adams said. “The funding will create the infrastructure for rapid intervention.”


Read More

Continue Reading

International

How They Convinced Trump To Lock Down

How They Convinced Trump To Lock Down

Authored by Jeffrey A. Tucker via Brownstone Institute,

An enduring mystery for three years is how…

Published

on

How They Convinced Trump To Lock Down

Authored by Jeffrey A. Tucker via Brownstone Institute,

An enduring mystery for three years is how Donald Trump came to be the president who shut down American society for what turned out to be a manageable respiratory virus, setting off an unspeakable crisis with waves of destructive fallout that continue to this day. 

Let’s review the timeline and offer some well-founded speculations about what happened. 

On March 9, 2020, Trump was still of the opinion that the virus could be handled by normal means. 

Two days later, he changed his tune. He was ready to use the full power of the federal government in a war on the virus. 

What changed? Deborah Birx reports in her book that Trump had a friend die in a New York hospital and this is what shifted his opinion. Jared Kushner reports that he simply listened to reason. Mike Pence says he was persuaded that his staff would respect him more. No question (and based on all existing reports) that he found himself surrounded by “trusted advisors” amounting to about 5 or so people (including Mike Pence and Pfizer board member Scott Gottlieb)

It was only a week later when Trump issued the edict to close all “indoor and outdoor venues where people congregate,” initiating the biggest regime change in US history that flew in the face of all rights and liberties Americans had previously taken for granted. It was the ultimate in political triangulation: as John F. Kennedy cut taxes, Nixon opened China, and Clinton reformed welfare, Trump shut down the economy he promised to revive. This action confounded critics on all sides. 

A month later, Trump said his decision to have “turned off” the economy saved millions of lives, later even claiming to have saved billions. He has yet to admit error. 

Even as late as June 23rd of that year, Trump was demanding credit for having followed all of Fauci’s recommendations. Why do they love him and hate me, he wanted to know. 

Something about this story has never really added up. How could one person have been so persuaded by a handful of others such as Fauci, Birx, Pence, and Kushner and his friends? He surely had other sources of information – some other scenario or intelligence – that fed into his disastrous decision. 

In one version of events, his advisors simply pointed to the supposed success of Xi Jinping in enacting lockdowns in Wuhan, which the World Health Organization claimed had stopped infections and brought the virus under control. Perhaps his advisors flattered Trump with the observation that he is at least as great as the president of China so he should be bold and enact the same policies here. 

One problem with this scenario is timing. The Oval Office meetings that preceded his March 16, 2020, edict took place the weekend of the 14th and 15th, Friday and Saturday. It was already clear by the 11th that Trump was ready for lockdowns. This was the same day as Fauci’s deliberately misleading testimony to the House Oversight Committee in which he rattled the room with predictions of Hollywood-style carnage. 

On the 12th, Trump shut all travel from Europe, the UK, and Australia, causing huge human pile-ups at international airports. On the 13th, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a classified document that transferred control of pandemic policy from the CDC to the National Security Council and eventually the Department of Homeland Security. By the time that Trump met with Fauci and Birx in that legendary weekend, the country was already under quasi-martial law. 

Isolating the date in the trajectory here, it is apparent that whatever happened to change Trump occurred on March 10, 2020, the day after his Tweet saying there should be no shutdowns and one day before Fauci’s testimony. 

That something very likely revolves around the most substantial discovery we’ve made in three years of investigations. It was Debbie Lerman who first cracked the code: Covid policy was forged not by the public-health bureaucracies but by the national-security sector of the administrative state. She has further explained that this occurred because of two critical features of the response: 1) the belief that this virus came from a lab leak, and 2) the vaccine was the biosecurity countermeasure pushed by the same people as the fix. 

Knowing this, we gain greater insight into 1) why Trump changed his mind, 2) why he has never explained this momentous decision and otherwise completely avoids the topic, and 3) why it has been so unbearably difficult to find out any information about these mysterious few days other than the pablum served up in books designed to earn royalties for authors like Birx, Pence, and Kushner. 

Based on a number of second-hand reports, all available clues we have assembled, and the context of the times, the following scenario seems most likely. On March 10, and in response to Trump’s dismissive tweet the day before, some trusted sources within and around the National Security Council (Matthew Pottinger and Michael Callahan, for example), and probably involving some from military command and others, came to Trump to let him know a highly classified secret. 

Imagine a scene from Get Smart with the Cone of Silence, for example. These are the events in the life of statecraft that infuse powerful people with a sense of their personal awesomeness. The fate of all of society rests on their shoulders and the decisions they make at this point. Of course they are sworn to intense secrecy following the great reveal. 

The revelation was that the virus was not a textbook virus but something far more threatening and terrible. It came from a research lab in Wuhan. It might in fact be a bioweapon. This is why Xi had to do extreme things to protect his people. The US should do the same, they said, and there is a fix available too and it is being carefully guarded by the military. 

It seems that the virus had already been mapped in order to make a vaccine to protect the population. Thanks to 20 years of research on mRNA platforms, they told him,  this vaccine can be rolled out in months, not years. That means that Trump can lock down and distribute vaccines to save everyone from the China virus, all in time for the election. Doing this would not only assure his reelection but guarantee that he would go down in history as one of the greatest US presidents of all time. 

This meeting might only have lasted an hour or two – and might have included a parade of people with the highest-level security clearances – but it was enough to convince Trump. After all, he had battled China for two previous years, imposing tariffs and making all sorts of threats. It was easy to believe at that point that China might have initiated biological warfare as retaliation. That’s why he made the decision to use all the power of the presidency to push a lockdown under emergency rule. 

To be sure, the Constitution does not allow him to override the discretion of the states but with the weight of the office complete with enough funding and persuasion, he could make it happen. And thus did he make the fateful decision that not only wrecked his presidency but the country too, imposing harms that will last a generation. 

It only took a few weeks for Trump to become suspicious about what happened. For weeks and months, he toggled between believing that he was tricked and believing that he did the right thing. He had already approved another 30 days of lockdowns and even inveighed against Georgia and later Florida for opening. He went so far as to claim that no state could open without his approval. 

He did not fully change his mind until August, when Scott Atlas revealed the whole con to him. 

There is another fascinating feature to this entirely plausible scenario. Even as Trump’s advisors were telling him that this could be a bioweapon leaked from the lab in China, we had Anthony Fauci and his cronies going to great lengths to deny it was a lab leak (even if they believed that it was). This created an interesting situation. The NIH and those surrounding Fauci were publicly insisting that the virus was of zoonotic origin, even as Trump’s circle was telling the president that it should be regarded as a bioweapon. 

Fauci belonged to both camps, which suggests that Trump very likely knew of Fauci’s deception all along: the “noble lie” to protect the public from knowing the truth. Trump had to be fine with that. 

Gradually following the lockdown edicts and the takeover by the Department of Homeland Security, in cooperation with a very hostile CDC, Trump lost power and influence over his own government, which is why his later Tweets urging a reopening fell on deaf ears. To top it off, the vaccine failed to arrive in time for the election. This is because Fauci himself delayed the rollout until after the election, claiming that the trials were not racially diverse enough. Thus Trump’s gambit completely failed, despite all the promises of those around him that it was a guaranteed way to win reelection.

To be sure, this scenario cannot be proven because the entire event – certainly the most dramatic political move in at least a generation and one with unspeakable costs for the country – remains cloaked in secrecy. Not even Senator Rand Paul can get the information he needs because it remains classified. If anyone thinks the Biden approval of releasing documents will show what we need, that person is naive. Still, the above scenario fits all available facts and it is confirmed by second-hand reports from inside the White House. 

It’s enough for a great movie or a play of Shakespearean levels of tragedy. And to this day, none of the main players are speaking openly about it. 

Jeffrey A. Tucker is Founder and President of the Brownstone Institute. He is also Senior Economics Columnist for Epoch Times, author of 10 books, including Liberty or Lockdown, and thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press. He speaks widely on topics of economics, technology, social philosophy, and culture.

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/24/2023 - 17:40

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending