The bond market isn’t buying what Fed Chair Warsh is selling
reuters.com
reuters.com
The current direction is not going where consumers would want.
Pretty sure Jerome Powell, the previous chair, would have done exactly the same thing. In fact Jerome Powell is still in the Fed and participated in this decision.
I’ve had quite enough of Trump’s “meritocracy”, personally.
None of the applies to Mr. Powell whom the market seems to have put a great deal of trust in
https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/powell-says-tariffs-keepi...
Thanks for the link, hope they figure it out.
Kevin Warsh < Jerome Powell < Janet Yellen
... in terms of credibility as an economist, with Ben Bernanke one step to either side of Powell depending on how much you feel he was a victim of circumstances in the 2008 crisis.
That said, the current problems in the US economy are entirely out of the control of the Fed and all to do with the current administration's policies (mainly the war vs Iran driving commod vol and the on-again off-again trade tariff shuffle driving fx vol) and the long-term deficit position driving rate curve shenanigans. The AI and private credit bubbles are just adding to the anxiety. All of this ultimately feeds into domestic inflation and job market malaise.
The bond market generally doesn't take shit from anyone and it's not surprising to me that bond investors are not impressed. None of that is on Warsh.
Meanwhile, the ECB started raising the rate once the economy stopped crashing. And that promptly caused the second recession in Europe.
We still live under the constraints of our world, and energy availablity is a big one.
It caused the double-dip recession in 2012: https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/euu/eur... and https://www.statista.com/statistics/621489/fluctuation-of-fi...
The actions of the ECB caused at least 10 years of misery for Europe. The 2008 crisis was inevitable, but the US bounced back from it within 2 years. While Europe is _still_ not fully recovered.
Bernanke deserves a lot of credit for that. He was brave enough to ignore the deficit hawks who were screaming about "inflation" and "debasing the dollar".
A lot of that $40T was borrowed at lower interest rates but let's assume for argument's sake that it was borrowed at 5%. That's $2T in interest alone every year. There's a huge difference between adding $2T in debt at 5%+ every year vs 1-3%.
The Fed has auctions to sell its debt. That market clears at a certain interest rate so if the market isn't buying the debt the rate the Fed pays has to go up. That's what's happening here.
What's driving this is that inflation is above the ~2% target. Well above, actually. There are generally two ways of tackling high inflation: with monetary policy (ie raising interest rates) and with fiscal policy (by raising taxes). Modern US administrations (both parties) have completely abandoned any pretense of ever raising taxes. That was the appropriate solution during the inflation shock of 2020-2022. Some European countries did this with a corporate windfall profits tax (eg Spain). The US did not.
The problem is that since housing is such a huge part of consumer spending, higher interest rates mean higher mortgage rates, which means higher housing expenditure, which means higher inflation. Now luckily most mortgages in the US are 30 year fixed so this is slow to respond and only really affects new mortgage. Other countries aren't so lucky.
But the big drivers in inflation are soaring grocery costs and energy costs. Energy costs, particularly diesel, is a massive driver of inflation. The rise in groceries since Covid has completley outpaced inflation while real wages have fallen. There's only so much more inflation the American consumer can take. Household savings rates are already very low so there's very little in the way of a buffer to absorb higher costs.
This is all being exacerbated by the disastrous war in Iran and the war in Ukraine. Russia had been a net exporter of diesel until recently as Ukraine has damaged an estimated 40% of Russian refining capcity. Refineries in the Gulf have also been taken offline. There's been a loss of over 1 million barrels per day in refining capacity. This is somewhat paradoxically why crudel oil prices are relatively low given all that's going on: because crudel oil is mostly useless unless it's refined. Destroy refineries and demand for oil goes down. But the demand for refined petroleum products goes up, way up [1].
It should be noted that China has essentially saved the world economy up to this point [2]. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz blocked the passage of ~20 million barrels per day of crude (plus 20-30% of the world's natural gas plus fertilizer plus helium). The inflation shock of 2020-2022 occurred because we lost "only" 10 million barrels. But China seemingly cut their imports by 5M. Saudi Arabia diverted 5-7 via the East-West pipeline to the Red Sea. The US has been draining the strategic reserve and so net we've only lost a few million barrels per day. That's temporary. the SPR has hit historic lows not seen in 40 years and it can't get much lower without risking a collapse of the salt caverns it's stroed in in Louisiana. Nobody knows if and when that'll happen because we've never done this before.
The backdrop for all this is that there has been a decades-long effort at this point to essentially loot government coffers in the US. More tax cuts for the top 0.01%. The Western world in general has reached a breaking point where land hoarding and wealth need to be taxed or society as we know it will actually break down. I'm not being hyperbolic. Currently, there's no concern for that from the looters because upheaval means war, which means more weapons sales. Also, free movement of capital means the wealthy believe they can just flee.
For context, a mere 10 years ago the US total public debt was ~$16T. It's 2.5x'ed in a decade and only going to get worse unless something drastically changes.
Warsh was put in to cut rates for political purposes. The best he can do is to hold rates steady because they really should go up in an environment where we aren't going to raise taxes.
As for Iran, it's been clear since at least April, that this is an unmistakable and undeniable total strategic defeat for the US and there is no way out other than to surrender. This event will be written about in history books as a turning point in the world order that was designed by the US, for the US after 1945. We are entering a new era. This is going to redefine US relationships all over the world.
[1]: https://rbnenergy.com/market-data/3-2-1-crack-spread
[2]: https://www.theatlantic.com/economy/2026/07/china-iran-usa-o...
A very significant amount of American voters believe this. To this day. And their belief in this is still being reinforced by the vast majority of the "mainstream media" which they believe is left-biased, which hasn't been true for very many years at this point.
This is why we are fucked and there is no way out of this that doesn't involve existential threat to our current society.
1. Trump in his first term created the Abraham Accords that directly contributed to the genocide that has since happened (by excluding Palestinians from the process). Biden did not reverse any of that because he is an avowed Zionist;
2. Trump blew up the JCPOA that sought to include Iran in the international community for really no reason than to please his donors, particularly his biggest donors, Sheldon and Miriam Adelson, who are also avowed Zionists. This was an Obama-era deal and part of me is convinced that Trump blew it up simply because it had Obama's name on it. Biden of course did not reinstate it;
3. Trump blew up energy markets in 2020 with the disastrous OPEC deal he made in June that created the inflation shock of Covid. Biden quietly went to MBS to get him to increase oil output. He refused. Biden said nothing. He absolutely could've waved a very big stick to get MBS to change course here, notably by threatening arms shipments; and
4. The so-called "bear-hug strategy" following October 7 set the stage for everything that's happening now. At any point in the last more than a year of his term, Biden could've ended that conflict with a phone call. He did not because, again, he is an avowed Zionist. That both emboldened Israel to drag the US into the Iran war and also was a key factor in the Democrats losing the 2024 presidential election although I'm not actually convinced we'd be in a vastly different situation had Kamala won (eg [1]).
US foreign policy is surprisingly uniparty.
Oil is good for business because it's good for war. It's also why we don't have major investment in renewables. As this article put it, nobody goes to war over a solar panel [2].
[1]: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/10/8/kamala-harris-says-...
[2]: https://www.theenergymix.com/no-one-goes-to-war-over-a-solar...
I think Biden did manage to enact some good domestic economic policy in a tough political environment, but in addition to everything you pointed out that I agree with he obviously should have stepped aside for the 2024 election long before he did and his decision to nominate Merrick Garland for Attorney General will be seen as one of those history book moments of very high consequence in the fall of an empire (assuming we have legitimate history books in this future).
Plenty of blame to go around for many Democrats here for both the fact that our disastrous foreign policy is, as you've said, uniparty, and also their fecklessness and early boosting of the whole Trump project in 2016 (because they believed he would be easier to beat than the other Republicans) did a lot to set all of this in motion.
Not everything is a simple ctrl-z, and the blame lays squarely on who implemented it.
There are a lot of people that do not know what to do.
There are also wounds that you can't really do anything about without hospital. (internal bleeding?!)
The funny thing is, as analogies go, here the friend tells you to bugger off because of israel and tells the mugger to come back and help him... mugger stabs him some more
"stuck in the past" vibes vs making progress
I've voted democrat in every election since I was 18.
As an example, take the current Iran war. There's very little opposition in establishment politics to the actual war. What you get instead are process objections, such as the president not consulting Congress. Objecting to the process is a way of appearing to be in opposition without being in opposition.
This was ultimately why Kamala Harris lost the 2024 election. "Trump bad" isn't a platform that people get excited for. People are asking "what are you going to do about it?" and her answer was... nothing. It was the culmination of years of what's been called "lesser evil voting" or "harm reduction voting". Democrats have adopted a platform of just not being quite as bad as the Republicans, probably because they have the exact same donors. And millions of voters stayed home in 2024 rather than vote for the status quo.
So back to the JCPOA, Biden should've done something but did nothing. Because he likes what Trump did. He agrees with it. And so do most Democrats. That's the point.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratchet_effect
[2]: https://ia800503.us.archive.org/5/items/mirage-of-dissent-th...
I think it depends on how you characterize “reformist”. I’m almost certainly being too loose with this term. I mean people who actually push hard for substantial reform, including deep technical reforms, not the common colloquial meaning of incremental, superficial reform from groups like the New Democrat Coalition. Frankly I probably should have used a different word, as I think my usage here is atypical.
What I mean is the somewhat awkward “non-mainstream liberals who advocate for substantial policy changes.” Maybe I should just say progressives? But the people I’m thinking of don’t quite fit in with most of the progressives, even if they do sometimes align with them. We don’t have Lib Dems like the UK does, but that would probably be the segment I’m talking about if we had that here.
Biden did a pretty good job cleaning up after Trump. Was he perfect? Not even close. But Dem primary voters had the option of more progressive candidates and instead they circled around Biden. Did donors try and engineer a Biden win? Sure. Were voters obligated to go along with their scheme? Also no.
The blame for our situations rests squarely on the shoulders of the American people, who have been living so insulated from the consequences of their votes that they entertained a guy like Trump, twice.
Republicans like the filibuster because they can force through most of what they want under reconciliation, which only requires a simply majority, and they can block Democrats with a minority. Democrats like the filibuster because it gives them an excuse to do nothing. Because a lot of what Democrats want to do isn't filibuster-proof.
Also, the filibuster once meant that you had to stand up and hold the floor to block a vote. Now we have a silent hold since the 1970s. If you for some reason believe in needing 60 votes to end debate, why not at least adopt the earlier interpretation that requires someone to stand at a podium? Because Democrats don't want to do anything. That's why.
Biden had four terrible decisions in his presidency:
1. Appointing Merrick Garland as AG. He's another establishment Democrat that didn't want to do anything, really, particularly not prosecute the insurrection that took place. He was embarrassed into doing so by the January 6 Committee. He basically lost 2 years of potentially prosecuting the administration;
2. His Israel policy, particularly the bear hug strategy and especially not ending the genocide;
3. Not raking MBS over the coals for not ending the Trump 2020 OPEC deal, wich exacerbated the inflation price shock; and
4. Running for re-election.
It's worth adding that the only reason Biden was the candidate was because the DNC was scared Bernie Sanders would be the candidate so they fixed the race in South Carolina thanks to Jim Clyburn in particular. Everyone dropped out of the primary and got rewarded with Cabinet posts, etc (eg Pete Buttigief as DoT Secretary). Except one. Elizabeth Warren stayed in to split Bernie's vote.
As for blaming the voters, I 100% disagree. The party leadership has repeatedly engineered situations to give the voters terrible choices and rely on lesser evil voting. After the 2017 election, the DNC got sued and argued in court that they had no obligation to stay neutral. That was a political promise not a binding promise. Basically, they argued that they were free to overrule the will of primary voters with superdelegates and manipualting of funds by then DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who when exposed and was forced out, just went and joined the Hilary campaign.
Voters stayed home in the millions in 2024 (vs 2020) because they were given no choice. They're not responsible for that. The candidate is. And if you end up being angry about Kamala losing, blame her for having a terrible platform, not the voters who decided a slightly better candidate was the only available choice.
Anyway we will have to agree to disagree. IMO almost everything you’ve said is true but still doesn’t absolve the voters who haven’t been voting in a vacuum starting in 2016.
What exactly do you mean when you say Zionist?
So Zionism for Israelis might just mean "we support and advocate for a Jewish state in the land of Israel" which also includes two-state solutions but it can mean "we are a colonial and ethno-religious racist state" to the ones being displaced by the movement (like Palestinians).
Also the Arabs took the land from the Byzantine empire in the 7th century AD.
A historical event from 1300 years ago is a bit irrelevant to contemporary issues.
1300 years vs 78 years, what is the cutoff?
Don't understand why you think 78 years is a long time, even less why you think it's equivalent to 1300 years.
Moreover, there are Palestinians that would like the generationally farmed land back that they lived on last week, last month, last year, five years ago, etc.
Shouldn't they have the right to land that has been illegally stolen from them that recently?
Why wouldn't they want to? Are you suggesting that living in Israel is preferable for Jews than living in a Muslim country?
> If there were not an Israel, we’d have to invent one
It's lying about working on a ceasefire [2][3]. It's sending more and more weapons to Israel afer October 7, going so far as to split them into up to 100 smaller packages to avoid the need for Congressional approval [4].
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/2HZs-v0PR44
[2]: https://internationalpolicy.org/publications/the-biden-admin...
[3]: https://truthout.org/articles/former-top-biden-spox-admits-i...
[4]: https://www.timesofisrael.com/report-us-quietly-approved-mor...
No he could not have. Israel has been a contentious ally for the US, especially while a Democrat has been POTUS because they are actually independently capable of supporting themselves and have their own internal economy and military industrial complex.
The relationship between the United States and Israel started with us(The United States) peeling them off of USSR support in the late 60s[1], and if we abandon them they will either go it on their own or find another ally who has interests in the region due to oil still being important.
Biden as a representative of the United States had leverage over Israel, but not such complete control that he could just call Netanyahu and demand and end the war and have that be done with.
And that's not even getting into whatever the fuck you mean by " ... he is an avowed Zionist" [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union_and_the_Arab%E2%8...
The Biden admin pulled no levers whatsoever. On the contrary, it went to great lengths to cover for a genocide that it was aware of. This admin will be part of the history books, but not in a good light :)
You are 100% correct on this. That does not however mean they have the ability to end a war in one phone call
> The Biden admin pulled no levers whatsoever.
This is incorrect. Biden tried to constrain Netanyahu and did shit like making the pier to deliver aid to the Palestinians. Netanyahu responded by snubbing Biden and giving a speech to the Senate instead.
I am generally anti Israel as the nation because I believe they have been a shit tier ally who feels free to fuck around in our elections with no remorse, but acting like we had the ability to force them into actions they didn't want, without using military force, is fucking ridiculous.
Again, I think they are a piss poor ally, largely because they will not work with us, and that is largely because they have the ability to operate independently and utilize that ability constantly. If we got rid of any dependence on oil I would say fuck the whole region because every state there is in a competition over who can be the biggest assholes to us, with the possible slight exception of Jordan, and I cage that claim because I only know a decade or two of their history in relations with us and honestly mostly because one of their kings wanted to be in star trek so bad he got a spot as an extra, which implies some level of agreeing with our values.
No, it is not. The US has the power to sanction entire states & cut them out from the global banking system overnight. Look at what Cuba has suffered for daring to oppose the US.
> but Israel has a 700B GDP economy now
That would mean shit if the country is sanctioned and its leaders declared persona non grata. South Africa was similarly quite powerful, but when you’re reliant on Western backing and integration, existing as a pariah state is not a sustainable position to be in.
If you believe that " ... Biden could've ended that conflict with a phone call ... " as the original poster I replied to said, then please explain to me the mechanics of who exactly he would call, and how that phone call would end this conflict.
I am asking that because I am appalled at how often people discussing this conflict act like fucking wars between different organizations can just be solved with a snap of someone's fingers.
If you cannot engage with the complexities of reality, then you shouldn't be surprised that problems aren't solved as quickly, easily, and simply as you feel they should be.
This is a region that has been in constant warfare for longer than the US has existed as a nation between people where(and I hate to use this term because its normally a whataboutism) both sides have refused peace and appear ready to fight until their opponents or themselves are eradicated. No fucking third party putting sanctions on one group or the other is going to cause their fighting to end or we would have already seen the end of the Ukrainian/Russian war.
As an addendum to the above, when you say "agree to disagree" but then add your opinion at the end with
> ... although we will never know for sure given that Biden is a self-avowed Zionist who chose the path of unconditional support.
You are commenting in bad faith.
1. To present a viewpoint to readers through debating with one or more people. Crucially, in this scenario, I am not interested in winning over my interlocutor(s).
2. To convince someone I personally know and/or who is clearly amenable to changing their viewpoint on the topic.
(1) doesn’t apply here because we are deep into a reply chain that virtually no one else is reading.
(2) doesn’t apply because I do not know you. I also have a very strong position on the topic of Palestine and am not interested in engaging one on one with someone who is far off from my position.
That is why I decided to pull out of the discussion. Have a good one.
But the history has always been that the US could order Israel to do whatever it wanted from Eistenhower telling Israel to get the hell out of Sinai to Biden telling Israel to knockj it off in Gaza in 2021 [1] and plenty in between (eg US involvement in the Yom Kippur War in 1973 led to Moshe Dayan telling Golda Meir they had to stop because the Americans said so, basically).
The parallel for this is apartheid South Africa. That regime collapsed when it became clear that domestic political pressure was forcing the US to withdraw support. The exact same thing would happen in Israel. Israel gets billions in direct aid and, more importantly, the military is completely dependent on US arms shipments and weapon systems.
If Biden had told Bibi "we're going to stop arms shipments if you don't stop this" it would've ended immediately.
[1]: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/19/biden-tells-israels-netanyah...
Are down voters saying Trump/Biden should let the provisions expire?
---
On JCPOA, many of the critical provisions had pending expiration dates by this time [0] [1] and re-negotiation needed to happen again anyways.
Obama kicked the can down the road and Trump/Biden needed to provide the next kick.
[0] - Jan 2026, the limits on the types of centrifuges expire. Jan 2031, quantitative nuclear limits expire (enrichment ceiling).
[1] - https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2017-10/news/iran-nuclear-de...
This is a very insightful book, highly recommend.
> Trump blew up the JCPOA that sought to include Iran in the international community for really no reason than to please his donors Indeed, a few of the US allies in the Middle East, like the UAE, Saudi Arabia, as well as Bahrain, expressed concerns over the Iran nuclear deal[2].
We are entering a critical point in time, where Western civilization may not dominate the world anymore like it did for the past 300 years. There will be a lot of instability, though a lot of people fail to recognize that and are underprepared.
[1] https://www.twz.com/air/gbu-57-massive-ordnance-penetrator-s... [2] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/5/9/world-leaders-react-...
In most countries with normal mortgages, raising rates fairly immediately transmits through to the rest of the economy, because it affects the mortgage market. This isn't true in America, because everyone quite reasonably is able to get these insane mortgage products with literally no downside risk - if rates go up, you don't pay more. If they go down, you refinance at minimal cost.
Agree to disagree on the tax issue. The way you've framed it is fairly inflammatory, but happy to have a discussion about it. The reality is that as much money as rich people have, the middle class have a whole lot more. Every country with large government spending has broad, high taxes on the entire population, not just the rich.
I earn a reasonable income, but the reality is even though I live alone and don't really think about where I spend my money finances are good. I could quite easily save a fair bit more than I currently do if I wanted to.
My experience won't align with everyone, but it is enough for me to feel somewhat dismissive of people who say life sucks. At some point, if you aren't earning enough and/or spend too much, that's on you. Some of the people I know of who complain about finances feel they should not have to care about their spending, or have "luxuries" that are actually very expensive (going out drinking alcohol is a big one where I'm at). The reality is anything that takes human Labor in a developed economy is very expensive.
We have an affordability crisis. What good would increasing mortgage payments do when housing is one of the biggest single expenses? The point of raising interest rates is to take the economy off the boil, essentially by cutting down on discretionary spending. Grocery prices are up 30%+ since the pandemic. Are people eating too much? Can you eat less? Consumer demand isn't doing that. Various forms of dynamic pricing (eg surveillance pricing) are doing that. The only reason for dynamic pricing to exist is to raise prices.
Beef prices in particular are through the roof and the only reason is price collusion. Meat packers have been sued by states about it. The root cause? AI. They're using the same AI system to set prices so the AI company has access to all the pricing information. That's the 2020s version of collusion. It's the same thing with RealPage and landlords. And something's gotta give. This system is unsustainable.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houses_are_for_living,_not_for...
Since 1990 the top 1% of wealth holders have seen their share of the wealth increase significantly, almost entirely on the backs of the middle class (and to a lesser extent, the upper-middle class).
The middle/upper middle class may have more collectively than the wealthy, but this is why the middle feels materially poorer and more reactionary than they were 30 years ago. They are being outcompeted in housing (unfairly, by people with vastly more wealth) and are being overcharged and underdelivered on medical care, education and food.
The rich need to be taxed back down to a reasonable share of wealth (<20%) or the politics of the country will continue to be unstable because the masses will continue to vote for change, every election, in search of that outcome.
While this is the orthodoxy, it should be obvious it is nonsense.
The idea that we must curtail production in order to reduce inflation is so incoherent that it damns the professional court economists who have spread it far and wide.
No, why? US is an exporter, not importer of oil, so any price increase of crude oil is good for US. Maybe not consumers, but government (Venezuela had literal amine while exporting a lot of oil and honoring all of the international debt payments). So US must have more money to service its international debt.
It is good for US oil producers, who have indeed been making money hand over fist exporting oil at a premium. It certainly it not good for anyone else.
But I'm talking about budget deficit: more money in -- easier to service debt.
Also, housing costs don't statically climb as interest rates go up. A decrease in market price makes up for most of the difference.