You have to start with the most fundamental concept here: central planning doesn’t work. That’s the first principle. Central planning of shoes doesn’t work. Central planning of wheat doesn’t work, and central planning of (fake) money doesn’t work.

Central banks in general—and the Fed in particular—are on a mission impossible. They don’t know what the interest rate should be. Nobody does. That’s an exclusive function of a voluntary market of savers and borrowers.

A politburo can’t centrally plan interest rates any more than they can potatoes. They’re inevitably going to fail and cause significant damage.

It’s also important to remember central banks have NOTHING to do with the free market. They’re actually the antithesis of the free market. In Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto, central banking is the 5th plank.

The lying media portrays central bankers as selfless bureaucrats who are just trying to save the economy. It’s a load of BS. Central bankers are the enemy of the average person.

Now, back to the rate hiking charade.

The Fed had embarked on one of the steepest rate hike cycles in history in 2022. They did so because price increases were spiraling out of control after the Fed inflated the money supply by around 40%—a staggering amount—amid the Covid mass psychosis starting in 2020.

In other words, they were forced to embark on this steep rate hike cycle to combat the inflation that they caused in the first place.

At the time, I knew they would never be able to tame inflation because of the skyrocketing federal debt load. If the Fed was able to raise interest rates to the point where it would actually defeat inflation, the rising interest expense on this exploding pile of debt would have bankrupted the US government.

The federal debt’s interest cost is already higher than the defense budget. Soon, it could exceed Social Security and other entitlements and become the number one item in the federal budget.

For context, the last time inflation was raging, Fed Chair Paul Volcker needed to raise interest rates above 17%. However, that was in the early 1980s, when the US debt-to-GDP ratio was around 30%. Today, it’s north of 123% and rising rapidly.

Today’s higher debt load and accompanying interest expense are why the Volcker option is not on the table. There’s no way the Fed could raise rates any near 17%. They barely took rates above 5% this time before capitulating—not even 1/3 of what Volcker did.

In short…

1. The federal interest expense exceeded $1 trillion for the first time recently.
2. The federal interest expense has recently exceeded national defense spending for the first time and is poised to become the largest item in the budget.
3. The US government is now borrowing money to pay the interest on the money it has already borrowed.

Considering all of this, Fed Chair Powell’s recent announcement that the rate hike cycle is officially over shouldn’t have been a surprise. Now, we’re going back to monetary easing.

The Fed’s Propaganda Victory

The Fed and its apologists in the lying media are trying to gaslight you and tell you inflation has been defeated, which is absurd.

The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is the most politically manipulated statistic in all of government. That is saying something because a lot of government statistics are completely manipulated, but inflation, as measured by the CPI, is probably the most manipulated.

The CPI is a basket of prices trying to measure the average price changes for 340 million Americans. It’s an impossible task because every individual has a different price basket. Consider someone who lives in New York City compared to someone who lives in rural Montana. They have totally different price baskets.

Using the CPI as a measure of price increases for 340 million people is even more preposterous than taking the average temperature across 50 states in the US as a meaningful statistic to determine what clothes you should wear today.

Further, the government gets to cherry-pick what items go in the CPI basket and their weightings. It’s like letting a student grade his own paper.

In short, the CPI is a worthless statistic. It’s misleading government propaganda intended to conceal the government’s atrocious currency debasement. So, according to their own rigged CPI metric, has the Fed accomplished its inflation goal? Nope.

They didn’t even reach their totally arbitrary 2% CPI target before they declared a fake victory. By the way, targeting 2% inflation is a nonsensical concept. Inflation is poisonous at any level. Think of it like a bucket that continuously leaks 2% of the water it carries.

That’s the kind of outcome the clowns at the Fed are trying to engineer for the economy—but they couldn’t even do that.

In short, the Fed’s narrative that inflation has been defeated is so laughably ridiculous that the only explanation is deliberate deception.

Here’s a way to think of it.

Imagine you used to weigh 180 pounds in 2019. In 2020, you gained 10 pounds and are now 190 lbs. In 2021, you gained 25 pounds and are now 215 lbs. You tell concerned friends and family not to worry about your weight gain because it’s just “transitory.”

In 2022, you go on a diet but still gain 20 pounds. You are now 235 lbs. In 2023, you continue on your diet and gain 10 pounds. You are now 245 lbs. In 2024, you have gained 5 pounds so far and are now 250 lbs.

The rate at which you gain weight is down, but your weight has increased around 40%, from 180 lbs to 250 lbs. You now declare victory, end your diet, and go back to the lifestyle that caused the weight gain surge in the first place.

This is the same kind of “victory” the Fed is declaring with inflation and the money supply, which also grew around 40% over a similar period.

In short, they are gaslighting people and spewing propaganda. So, why are they attempting to deceive people? Nobody knows for sure except them.

But if I had to guess, they are desperately trying to conceal the massive economic destruction they have already caused and the coming destruction they will cause, which could be much worse than anything we’ve seen so far.

It could all go down soon… and it won’t be pretty. It will result in an enormous wealth transfer from savers to the parasitical class—politicians, central bankers, and those connected to them.

Unfortunately, there’s little any individual can practically do to change the course of these trends in motion.

The best you can and should do is to stay informed so that you can protect yourself in the best way possible and even profit from the situation.

That’s why I just released an urgent new PDF report with all the details.

It’s called The Most Dangerous Economic Crisis in 100 Years… the Top 3 Strategies You Need Right Now.

Click here to download it now.

Prechter expressed his belief that an emergency rate cut is imminent due to the rapid decline in rates. The last time the Fed made such a move was during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, many experts argue that another emergency cut could signal that the US economy is in dire straits, potentially exacerbating market anxieties.

In January, Prechter had warned that excessive optimism in the market posed a significant risk. He now asserts that this optimism has become deeply entrenched and that the world is witnessing the most inflated market in history.

Following the release of the July jobs report, which revealed a rise in unemployment to levels not seen since October 2021, global markets experienced a sharp downturn amid concerns that the US economy is faltering.

On Monday, the stock market continued to plummet, with the Nikkei 225 index in Tokyo, the world’s third-largest stock exchange, suffering its worst single-day decline in nearly four decades, plummeting by 12 percent. The S&P 500 dropped 3 percent, marking its most significant decline in nearly two years. The Dow Jones fell by 1,033 points, or 2.6 percent, while the Nasdaq composite slid 3.4 percent.

Bloomberg estimates that approximately $6.4 trillion has been erased from the value of global stock markets over the past three weeks.

According to Prechter, much of this could have been averted if the Federal Reserve had chosen to cut rates at its last meeting. He criticized the Fed for missing a crucial opportunity to lower the Fed funds rate by a quarter point.

Economists at Goldman Sachs have now increased the probability of the US entering a recession within the next year from 15 percent to 25 percent, while analysts at JP Morgan estimate a 50 percent likelihood.

Since March 2022, the Federal Reserve has been raising interest rates to combat inflation, but one prominent economist believes the agency is too focused on this single goal.

The chief economic advisor at Allianz, Mohamed El-Erian, has blamed the Fed for the current state of the market, arguing that the rate hikes are taking a heavy toll on the economy. He expressed concern that the US may lose its economic exceptionalism due to a policy mistake.

Even if the Fed waits until September to cut rates, most industry observers anticipate a rate cut is inevitable.

JP Morgan analysts have written a memo suggesting that the Fed appears to be significantly behind the curve and predicts a 50 basis point cut at the September meeting, followed by another 50 basis point cut in November.

Investors now expect that other major central banks will follow the Fed’s lead and aggressively ease rates, with the European Central Bank anticipated to cut rates by 67 basis points by Christmas.

The anticipated rate cuts by the Federal Reserve could have a positive impact on gold prices. This is because when interest rates are lowered, interest-bearing investments like bonds become less attractive, and investors often turn to gold as an alternative investment. Additionally, gold prices have historically risen when the Federal Reserve has cut interest rates.

Learn how you can take advantage of the current financial upheaval and protect your retirement with a Genesis Gold IRA from Genesis Gold Group.

The effect of this unfortunate assumption was the introduction of inflation rate management into the Fed’s remit, tool kit and vocabulary. While the official 2% “goal” did not materialize until decades later, it did creep into practice on a de facto basis under Volcker and his successors. At length, the idea that the Fed was not simply managing bank reserves and credit, but was in charge of the performance of the entire GDP including the rate of increase in the general price level became deeply embedded in the institution.

To be sure, Paul Volcker was exceedingly cautious on the matter of accommodating the embedded inflation and bringing down the rate of price increase in a deliberate manner, but he was also a sound money man at bottom. He was willing to accommodate existing inflation to only a limited degree and was ready to risk a recessionary contraction if that was required to break the back of financial speculation and the extant spiral of wage/price/cost inflation that had become embedded during the 1970s.

In fact, that’s actually what did happen and the deep recession of 1981-1982 did accelerate the pace of disinflation. From the peak Y/Y rate of 14.6% in March 1980, the CPI increase slowed sharply to just 2.36% as of July 1983.

At that point, however, Volcker was reluctant to press the case back to old-fashioned notion of price stability, even as he was forced to cope with the Texas cowboy (i.e. James Baker) who had taken over the Treasury during Reagan’s second term. The latter forced through the abomination of the 1985 Plaza Accord, a globally “coordinated” and/or imposed maneuver to trash the strong dollar, thereby importing inflationary pressures back into the US economy.

In any event, the Y/Y inflation rate bottomed at 1.91% in February 1987 and that very month Howard Baker became chief of staff at the White House. From that point forward the two Bakers—James and Howard, who were both easy money inflationists–operated a de facto GOP (the Republican Party) regency in the Reagan White House. So doing, they were not about to have the independent Volcker getting in the way of Republican electoral success.

So Paul Volcker was out, and his successor, Alan Greenspan, soon faced the infamous 22.6% stock market collapse on October 19, 1987. Thereupon, the once and former gold standard advocate and Ayn Rand disciple opened up the spigots at the Fed’s money-pump, thereby initiating a new surge of inflationary pressure during the last years of the 1980s.

As is evident by the chart below, Volcker’s partial victory over inflation was short-circuited after mid-1983. In all, the price level rose by 71% or 3.3% per annum through the next stock-market meltdown, when the NASDAQ plunged by 33% during 30 trading days in March/April 2000.

Y/Y CPI Change, March 1980 to March 2000

Greenspanian “Wealth Effects”

This capitulation to permanent, residual inflation in the 2-4% zone was a huge historical mistake. It opened the way for Greenspanian “wealth effects” management and the resulting economic abominations. That is, a battered main street economy, which gave way to massive off-shoring of America’s industry, coupled with the relentless inflation of financial assets, which showered Wall Street and the 1% with hideous amounts of unearned windfall wealth.

The trigger for this untoward breakdown was Greenspan’s fundamental policy error. He invented the spurious argument that residual inflation at 2-3% was good enough, when the actual requirement was to purge the inflationary cost structure that was already embedded in the US economy owing to the inflation spree of the 1970s.

What resulted from the Greenspan pivot was nothing more than a great inflationary disaster which amounted to monetary central planning and pro-inflation targeting by the central bank. Suffice to remind why a huge share of America’s merchandise goods are now sourced in China and other parts of the global low-wage supply chain. To wit, the Fed simply inflated American workers out of their jobs via soaring unit labor costs, which became increasingly noncompetitive in global markets.

U.S. Unit Labor Cost Growth, 1970 to 2024

Editor’s Note: The amount of money the US government spends on foreign aid, wars, the so-called intelligence community, and other aspects of foreign policy is enormous and ever-growing.

It’s an established trend in motion that is accelerating, and now approaching a breaking point. It could cause the most significant disaster since the 1930s.

Most people won’t be prepared for what’s coming. That’s precisely why bestselling author Doug Casey and his team just released an urgent video with all the details. Click here to watch it now.

If Treasury markets can’t be reigned in, the Fed expands its balance sheet by buying those Treasury securities to add liquidity and stability. These “open market operations” are usually the “money printing” that people are talking about happening at the Fed. “QE” refers more specifically to operations where the Fed is buying other assets beyond just Treasury securities, as occurred in the 2008 crisis and during COVID. But the Treasury buying back its own issued debt is, in essence, QE by another name.

When interpreting Treasury yield data, remember that this market is being heavily manipulated by Yellen – she's conducting the Treasury versions of both Operation Twist and QE, w/ overreliance on short-term issuance and now buybacks; term premium is now virtually nonsensical: pic.twitter.com/RH8UixQOMK

— E.J. Antoni, Ph.D. (@RealEJAntoni) May 1, 2024

While this occurs outside the halls of the Federal Reserve itself, Treasury buybacks are merely a different way to print money from nothing. The US is running a deep, sustained fiscal deficit with no true debt ceiling — so the Treasury buys back its own securities by issuing new debt, which it creates out of thin air. With spending far exceeding revenue, higher interest rates plus more debt means that fiscal deficits accelerate. The short-term stimulative effect of this somewhat offsets the Fed’s tightened monetary policy but digs a deeper hole in the longer term.

One method the Treasury uses is to shorten the average duration of securities so that debts mature sooner. That means more short-term debt (like Treasury bills) versus long-term debt (like Treasury bonds). This encourages more capital flows into the banking sector and helps stave off instability. If it fails, the big banks still win: when smaller banks fail, they’re usually just absorbed by bigger ones where the profits are private but the losses are socialized. The “Too Big to Fail” club becomes even bigger and more powerful.

When the Treasury issues more short-term debt, it’s waging war on the Fed’s higher interest rate policy. Both the Treasury and Fed need to keep Treasury yields down, but tightened monetary policy encourages higher yields. If yields get too high, the bond market — and challenged industries like commercial real estate that rely on debt — are screwed. So while the Fed tightens, the Treasury must loosen. Yields have since gone down, but if inflationary pressures and other factors push them back past 5%, both the Fed and Treasury are trapped.

“Higher for longer” policy at the Fed is even more essential for holding back inflation as the Treasury injects liquidity into markets. If the Fed lowers rates now, the results of simultaneously expansionary monetary and fiscal policy will send consumer prices soaring.

So are the Fed and Treasury in opposition, or are they working together, one changing its policy to prevent a disaster caused by the policies of the other? The answer is complex, but the oversimplified version is that the two have locked the economy into a game of musical chairs where, eventually, the music is bound to stop.

The end result of the Treasury’s showdown with the Fed will still be out-of-control inflation. Both artificially contract and expand the money supply, and their policies have both created an inescapable trap. COVID QE is one big unexploded bomb that is sitting in the center of that trap. And even with the Fed holding off on interest rate cuts in the short term, the Treasury’s buybacks are QE by a different name. With too much inflationary pressure and not enough tools to stop it, the end result of all this fiscal and monetary tinkering will be a disaster for the dollar.

President Biden called on Congress to pass legislation, sponsored by so-called moderate Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, to crack down on companies that reduce the amount of a good in a package. Biden and his congressional allies and media apologists think that this will stop shrinkflation. They think this because they believe shrinkflation is caused by corporate greed. In fact, shrinkflation is a rational response to increased prices caused by the Federal Reserve’s dollar depreciation.

Businesses reduce the amount of a product sold as a means to cope with rising prices of materials needed to make their products without directly raising the price paid by consumers. Unless greed is the only human emotion that fluctuates with the Federal Reserve’s policies, the fact that shrinkflation only occurs when Federal Reserve policies cause major price inflation should show anyone willing to think logically about these issues that the Fed, not greedy businesses, causes shrinkflation.

Making shrinkflation a federal crime would force more businesses to increase their prices. This would give the American people a more accurate picture of how the Federal Reserve’s price inflation is affecting their standard of living. Shrinkflation is impossible to quantify. Shrinkflation’s existence indicates that the impact of inflation is well above the Consumer Price Index’s report of a 3.2 percent increase in prices over the past year. The Federal Reserve’s interest rates increases have not been as effective in fighting price inflation as the government’s manipulated statistics make it appear.

If Biden wanted to stop inflation, he would start by reducing federal spending and paring down the over 35 trillion dollars national debt. These steps would allow the Federal Reserve to reduce its efforts to monetize the federal debt in order to keep borrowing costs low.

Disappointingly, but not surprisingly, President Biden’s proposed fiscal year 2025 budget fails to cut spending. It also proposes the government borrow nearly two trillion dollars a year for the next decade. While congressional Republicans have declared President Biden’s “big spending budget” dead on arrival, the fact is that, with few exceptions, Republicans are just as addicted to welfare-warfare spending as their Democratic counterparts. Therefore, instead of fighting for real and substantial reductions in spending, most Republicans are happy to pretend that getting Biden and the Democrats to agree to a one or two percent reduction in the rate of spending growth addresses the problem with excessive spending.

The movement to shrink government must continue to grow. To achieve this government shrinking goal, Congress must cut spending. Congress must also pass the Audit the Fed legislation and legalize competing currencies such as Bitcoin and precious metals. Congress should also pass legislation forcing the government to live within its means by forbidding the Federal Reserve from purchasing federal debt instruments.

The overreliance on credit cards and the accompanying increase in consumer debt are consequences of our fiat money system. Since Richard Nixon severed the last link between the dollar and gold in August of 1971, the dollar’s value has declined by 87 percent based on the government’s understated Consumer Price Index numbers. This means that even though Americans’ nominal wages have increased, their real wages have declined as their dollars buy less.

The continuing erosion of the dollar’s value makes it impossible for many Americans to accumulate meaningful savings. Those Americans who can save may actually lose money by doing so thanks to the Federal Reserve’s inflation tax that erodes the value of savings. This is why Congress has felt it necessary to provide tax incentives to encourage saving for things like retirement, education, and health care.

Congress could help protect Americans from the inflation tax by forbidding the Federal Reserve from purchasing government debt instruments such as Treasury securities. However, since this would end Congress’s ability to run up huge deficits, thus forcing it to pare back the welfare-warfare state, it is unlikely such legislation would pass.

The reliance of so many Americans on credit cards for basic necessities is one reason why many Americans are dissatisfied with the economy. The large amount of consumer debt is also a reason the Federal Reserve will not increase interest rates to anywhere near what they would be in a free market. The problem is compounded by the fact that investors and businesses have become addicted to near zero or at zero interest rates. The Fed’s relatively modest rate increases over the last couple years caused many “experts” to warn that the Fed was going to throw the economy into a recession. The Fed, though, has been able to claim recession has been avoided because the Fed kept the rates relatively low, and because government statistics are manipulated to understate the real rates of unemployment and inflation.

The Fed cannot indefinitely keep interest rates low without causing a dollar crisis. This will either be caused by, or result in, a rejection of the dollar’s world reserve currency status. At that point, interest rates will skyrocket and consumers and businesses that have been relying on debt to cope with the Fed’s dollar destruction will find the piper at their doors, demanding to be paid.

The economic crisis will be worsened by the moral crisis caused by the belief among too many Americans at all levels of society that they have a right to government-provided economic security at the expense of their fellow citizens. This will result in violence and the growth of authoritarian political movements.

The collapse of the fiat money system and the accompanying welfare-warfare state also provide an opportunity for those of us who understand the truth to build a society based around the principles of liberty. We must continue our efforts to reach a critical mass of people with the message of liberty while making plans to ensure our families can take care of themselves when the next crash occurs.

That $34 trillion, when spelled out, is the number thirty-four followed by twelve (count ’em) zeros separated by four commas. So it looks like this, a lot of digits and commas for the human brain to comprehend: $34,000,000,000,000.

These official debt figures do not even include the large unfunded liabilities inherent in the largest federal entitlement programs, Social Security and Medicare, Medicaid, and several others that comprise about two-thirds of federal spending. We can, however, accurately forecast those liabilities over the next seventy-five years—the time horizon used by the trustees of the two funds that finance the programs—because the future beneficiaries have already been born and will expect their benefits when they become eligible. Unfunded liabilities are currently estimated at $212 trillion.

The two programs, Social Security and Medicare, are structured so that future workers will be paying sufficient payroll taxes to pay future benefits as the population ages. But the trustees of the two programs project that the trust funds do not currently contain sufficient resources to fully cover these future benefits past the middle of the next decade without congressional changes.

Outstanding Debt versus Federal Budget Deficits

Where did all this debt come from? In the simplest sense, it came from too much spending. There tends to be confusion between annual federal budget deficits and the total outstanding federal debt. We’re referring here to the debt, not simply to the annual budget deficits that continue to increase the debt every time the federal government spends more than it receives in tax revenue.

This deficit spending results every year that the legislative and executive branches of our federal government can’t seem to control their spending habits, which has been the case every year since the late 1990s when the federal government last ran a small surplus. Annual federal budget deficits currently run at the $1.7 trillion level, compared to the $34 trillion debt.

Motivation to Pay Off the Federal Debt

Is there any motivation to attempt a debt payoff? Many Americans appear to have been lulled into accepting some variant of modern monetary theory, which has infected the populace like a virus, and which a small fringe group of economists believe allows a sovereign nation with its own sovereign currency to spend without limit, being able simply to issue more of its own currency to pay off any debt with impunity. Though these believers do not outright state that there is no limit to the amount of debt that sovereign countries can take on with no concern about ever repaying, reading between the lines and watching their behavior certainly indicates this conclusion.

What Debt Payoff Might Look Like

If there is any motivation to pay off the federal debt, what would this payoff actually entail? In the simplest terms, dividing the current outstanding $34 trillion debt by the current US population of 334,233,854 (as of January 1, 2023) yields a one-time per capita payoff figure of $101,725.18 for every man, woman, and child in the US.

While this undoubtedly exceeds the average savings account owned by most Americans, it doesn’t look like an outrageously high figure. But, of course, we’re assuming no more annual federal budget deficits that increase the debt, which would be a difficult promise for Congress and any president to keep. But if such a payoff were possible, it would obviate the need to continue paying interest on the debt, an outlay that now runs about $1 trillion annually.

Another approach to pay off the federal debt over time might be to structure the debt payoff similarly to an amortized mortgage. As a hypothetical thought exercise, picture that you’ve taken on a $34 trillion mortgage to buy your ultimate dream house.

The interest rate on this hypothetical mortgage is the current average rate being paid to lenders who own the Treasury bonds that comprise the debt. After all, these lenders, which include both Americans and those in foreign countries such as China, Japan, the United Kingdom, and others, would expect to receive their interest payments during the next thirty years that you will be paying your hypothetical mortgage.

The average annual interest rate on the US debt, as of December 2023, is 3.11 percent, which is expected to increase over time. But if you can lock in this interest rate on your hypothetical thirty-year $34 trillion mortgage, 3.11 percent sounds like a pretty good deal, below current conventional mortgage rates.

Using an Excel spreadsheet for the calculations, the formula for the monthly mortgage payment is PMT (1,2,3), where three arguments are as follows:

1. Monthly interest rate expressed as a decimal (0.0311), divided by 12.
2. The number of mortgage payments, 360 in this example (thirty years times 12).
3. The mortgage loan amount ($34,000,000,000,000 here).

For readers who may want to try this at home, inserting these three arguments into the Excel PMT calculation, the monthly payment for 360 payments over thirty years at a monthly mortgage interest rate of 0.00259 (i.e., 0.259 percent, about one-quarter of 1 percent) would be $145,370,309,731.07 total, or $434.94 per capita.

That’s $145 billion and change every month for thirty years, or $434.94 per every American man, woman, and child. This is most likely more than every American could ever afford to contribute every month for thirty years to repay the federal debt. And again, this assumes no more continuing federal budget deficits that would increase the existing debt. Remember, we’re only trying to pay off the current outstanding debt of $34 trillion.

Yet these figures are worth contemplating for their astounding magnitude, just as the total outstanding federal debt is worth contemplating for its astounding magnitude. These figures are very difficult for the human brain to grasp.

Anyone reading this far must conclude that this is a fatuous exercise, that there is no achievable way to pay off the current federal debt within the lifetimes of Americans currently alive, and that the only possible remedy is to begin curtailing federal spending to avoid taking on additional debt. That’s why we occasionally hear a few politicians speaking of (or paying lip service to) “deficit reduction,” which in the current political environment is the only humanly possible pursuit. And accomplishing that is easier said than done, for political as much as for financial reasons.

And on a final note, when contemplating the US fiscal predicament, keep in mind that there are only four means by which government can capture resources for its own use:

1. Outright confiscation of property for public use, which is prevented by the US Constitution’s “taking clause” without just compensation of the property owner.
2. Taxation.
3. Debt issuance.
4. Inflation that erodes the nominal amount of the debt over time, harming lenders.

Some observers would argue that this fourth strategy is perhaps what we are beginning to observe in the US and some other countries around the world, but that is a topic for another day.

About the Author

Jane Johnson is a retired college economics instructor who currently teaches economics at the Osher Lifelong Learning Institute in southern California. She is a graduate of Vassar College, and has graduate degrees from UC-Berkeley, and the University of Washington.

Internal or external auditors occasionally comb through individual loans in a bank’s portfolio and make judgments as to whether those loans are worth what the bank says they are worth due to lower appraised values and other issues either particular to an individual property or the market as a whole. Bankers then, begrudgingly, set aside earnings for potential loan losses.

In the case of the real estate loans at New York Community Bank, loan examiners must have told senior management to increase the bank’s loan loss provision by 790 percent to $552 million. This balance sheet expense drove the fourth-quarter loss and caused the bank to cut its dividend.

“The bank reported a near $2 billion increase in criticized multifamily loans—debt with a probability of default,” wrote Suzannah Cavanagh for the Real Deal. “Of its $37 billion multifamily loan book, which comprises 44 percent of its total portfolio, 8 percent was marked criticized in the quarter.” The bank also reported a $42 million net charge-off—debt unlikely to be paid back—for an office loan on which the borrower stopped paying interest.

The bank’s chief financial officer John Pinto pooh-poohed the loan carnage, saying, “We had higher levels of substandard [loans] throughout the Financial Crisis, throughout the pandemic. The rise in substandard loans does not lead directly to specific losses.”

Hope Springs Eternal

Like the 2008 financial crisis, what happens in the US isn’t staying in the US. Tokyo-based Aozora Bank said losses in its US office’s loan portfolio will likely lead to a net loss for the year ending in March, the Wall Street Journal reports. Also, the private Swiss bank Julius Baer took a roughly $700 million provision on loans made to Austrian property landlord Signa Group. The bank said shutting down the unit was what made the loans, and the chief executive has resigned.

Jay Powell made no mention of the New York Community Bank’s news in his prepared remarks, and reporters didn’t ask him about the bank’s troubles during the Q and A. There were no questions concerning the Bank Term Funding Program that will be sunsetted March 11 despite having risen to record highs. According to the Wall Street Journal’s Andrew Ackerman, the popularity of the program was not because of new stresses on banks. But reportedly, “some banks had recently figured out a way to game the program by pocketing the difference between what they pay to borrow the funds and what they can earn from parking the funds at the central bank as overnight deposits.” On January 31, banks had borrowed more than $165 billion from the facility.

It’s doubtful there are no new stresses on banks. New York Community Bank is not an anomaly.

To that point, real estate investor Barry Sternlicht told a conference crowd…

We have a problem in real estate. In every sector of real estate, not just office, because of the 500 basis point increase in rates that was vertical. The office market has an existential crisis right now . . . it’s a $3 trillion dollar asset class that’s probably worth $1.8 trillion [now]. There’s $1.2 trillion of losses spread somewhere, and nobody knows exactly where it all is.

Sternlicht mentioned a project in New York that was purchased for $200 million that he thought was now worth just $30 million, encumbered by a $100 million loan.

Harold Bordwin, a principal at Keen-Summit Capital Partners LLC in New York, which specializes in renegotiating distressed properties, told Bloomberg, “Banks’ balance sheets aren’t accounting for the fact that there’s lots of real estate on there that’s not going to pay off at maturity.”

Bordwin went on to say, “Banks—community banks, regional banks—have been really slow to mark things to market because they didn’t have to, they were holding them to maturity. They are playing games with what is the real value of these assets” (emphasis added).

The plan for the Bank Term Funding Program was hatched in haste over a weekend in March of last year in the wake of the Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank failures (Signature’s assets were purchased by New York Community Bank). To hide their embarrassment over banks using the facility for risk-free interest rate arbitrage, they say they are shutting the program down because there is no stress in the banking system.

There is stress aplenty in the banking world. As Murray Rothbard wrote in The Mystery of Banking, “Fractional reserve bank credit expansion is always shaky, for the more extensive its inflationary creation of new money, the more likely it will be to suffer contraction and subsequent deflation.”

While bankers and regulators have their heads in the sand, the contraction has already begun.

About the Author

Douglas French is President Emeritus of the Mises Institute, author of Early Speculative Bubbles & Increases in the Money Supply, and author of Walk Away: The Rise and Fall of the Home-Ownership Myth. He received his master’s degree in economics from UNLV, studying under both Professor Murray Rothbard and Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe. His website is DouglasInVegas.com.

It’s as if the Fed is asking the healthiest swimmers to don faulty life jackets first, in a bid to make them seem less alarming to those already struggling to stay afloat. Our guest commentator explains why this strategy, while intended to fortify the banking sector against future storms, would endanger all US banks.

The following article was originally published by the Mises Wire.

Last Thursday, Bloomberg reported that federal regulators are preparing a proposal to force US banks to utilize the Federal Reserve’s discount window in preparation for future bank crises. The aim, notes Katanga Johnson, is to remove the stigma around tapping into this financial lifeline, part of the continuing fallout from the failures of several significant regional banks last year.

This new policy is reminiscent of the Fed’s actions during the 2007 financial crisis, where financial authorities encouraged large banks to tap into the discount window, taking loans directly from the Federal Reserve, to make it easier for distressed banks to do the same. The hesitancy from financial institutions to tap into this source of liquidity is justified. If the public believes a bank needs support from the Fed, it is rational for depositors to flee the bank. The Fed’s explicit aim is to provide cover from at-risk banks, trying to hold off bank runs that are an inherent risk in our modern fractional reserve banking system.

By strong-arming healthy banks to comply, the Fed is escalating moral hazard and leaving customers more vulnerable. They are deliberately trying to remove a signal of institutional risk.

The regulator’s concerns about bank fragility are justified. The Fed’s low-interest rate environment meant financial institutions seeking low-risk assets bought up US treasuries with very low yields. As inflationary pressures forced rates upward, the market value of these bonds decreased in favor of new, higher-yield bonds. It was this pressure that sparked the failure of Silicon Valley Bank last year.

Additionally, the state of commercial real estate is a further stress for regional banks, which are responsible for 80 percent of such mortgages. In the previous low-interest rate environment, investors viewed commercial real estate as “a haven for investors in need of reliable returns.” Unfortunately, this same period experienced major changes in consumer behavior. Online shopping, remote work, and shared office space increased at the expense of traditional brick-and-mortar locations. Covid lockdowns only further amplified these trends.

As a result, commercial real estate debt is viewed as one of the most dangerous financial assets out there today, sitting right on the balance sheets of regional banks across the country.

These stresses have had a major impact not only on this latest policy from federal regulators but the depth of their response to last year’s failures. Following the failure of SVB, the Fed created the Bank Term Funding Program, which allowed banks and credit unions to borrow using US Treasuries and other assets as collateral. This emergency measure reflected fears of other banks being at risk. The Fed has signaled its willingness to let this program expire in March, with the aim of transitioning banks to increasing their use of the discount window.

While the actions of the Fed and financial regulators illustrate real concerns about the health of US banks, these same institutions have projected bullish optimism about the state of the economy in public. Fed Chairman Jerome Powell and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen have consistently described the US economy as “robust” over the last few months, a view not shared by the majority of Americans. Additionally, Powell proclaimed victory over inflation this past December, even while the Fed’s preferred measures remain well above their 2 percent target, in stark contrast to his previous statements about the necessity to aggressively tackle inflation at the risk of it becoming normalized.

The shadow of politics obviously can’t be decoupled from the rosy statements from government officials on the economy, particularly going into a presidential election year. Another motivation for projecting economic strength, however, is to re-arm the Federal Reserve’s policy arsenal. While the projections of Fed officials for rate cuts in 2024 have been packaged as reflecting the growing strength of the US economy, the reality is that the Fed desires the option to lower rates as a response to financial distress. The Fed has proven time and time again that if given the choice between forcing Americans to suffer from the consequences of inflation or bailing out the financial system, it will choose the latter.

With the 2024 election in full swing, Americans will be consistently bombarded with political lies and false promises, not just from politicians but from government agencies and the central bank. While we can expect another ten months of being told how strong the economy is, the actions being taken behind the scenes tell a very different story.

This new policy is reminiscent of the Fed’s actions during the 2007 financial crisis, where financial authorities encouraged large banks to tap into the discount window, taking loans directly from the Federal Reserve, to make it easier for distressed banks to do the same. The hesitancy from financial institutions to tap into this source of liquidity is justified. If the public believes a bank needs support from the Fed, it is rational for depositors to flee the bank. The Fed’s explicit aim is to provide cover from at-risk banks, trying to hold off bank runs that are an inherent risk in our modern fractional reserve banking system.

By strong-arming healthy banks to comply, the Fed is escalating moral hazard and leaving customers more vulnerable. They are deliberately trying to remove a signal of institutional risk.

The regulator’s concerns about bank fragility are justified. The Fed’s low-interest rate environment meant financial institutions seeking low-risk assets bought up US treasuries with very low yields. As inflationary pressures forced rates upward, the market value of these bonds decreased in favor of new, higher-yield bonds. It was this pressure that sparked the failure of Silicon Valley Bank last year.

Additionally, the state of commercial real estate is a further stress for regional banks, which are responsible for 80 percent of such mortgages. In the previous low-interest rate environment, investors viewed commercial real estate as “a haven for investors in need of reliable returns.” Unfortunately, this same period experienced major changes in consumer behavior. Online shopping, remote work, and shared office space increased at the expense of traditional brick-and-mortar locations. Covid lockdowns only further amplified these trends.

As a result, commercial real estate debt is viewed as one of the most dangerous financial assets out there today, sitting right on the balance sheets of regional banks across the country.

These stresses have had a major impact not only on this latest policy from federal regulators but the depth of their response to last year’s failures. Following the failure of SVB, the Fed created the Bank Term Funding Program, which allowed banks and credit unions to borrow using US Treasuries and other assets as collateral. This emergency measure reflected fears of other banks being at risk. The Fed has signaled its willingness to let this program expire in March, with the aim of transitioning banks to increasing their use of the discount window.

While the actions of the Fed and financial regulators illustrate real concerns about the health of US banks, these same institutions have projected bullish optimism about the state of the economy in public. Fed Chairman Jerome Powell and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen have consistently described the US economy as “robust” over the last few months, a view not shared by the majority of Americans. Additionally, Powell proclaimed victory over inflation this past December, even while the Fed’s preferred measures remain well above their 2 percent target, in stark contrast to his previous statements about the necessity to aggressively tackle inflation at the risk of it becoming normalized.

The shadow of politics obviously can’t be decoupled from the rosy statements from government officials on the economy, particularly going into a presidential election year. Another motivation for projecting economic strength, however, is to re-arm the Federal Reserve’s policy arsenal. While the projections of Fed officials for rate cuts in 2024 have been packaged as reflecting the growing strength of the US economy, the reality is that the Fed desires the option to lower rates as a response to financial distress. The Fed has proven time and time again that if given the choice between forcing Americans to suffer from the consequences of inflation or bailing out the financial system, it will choose the latter.

With the 2024 election in full swing, Americans will be consistently bombarded with political lies and false promises, not just from politicians but from government agencies and the central bank. While we can expect another ten months of being told how strong the economy is, the actions being taken behind the scenes tell a very different story.

Sound off about this article on the Economic Collapse Substack.

About the Author

Tho is Editorial and Content Manager for the Mises Institute, and can assist with questions from the press. Prior to working for the Mises Institute, he served as Deputy Communications Director for the House Financial Services Committee. His articles have been featured in The Federalist, the Daily Caller, Business Insider, The Washington Times, and The Rush Limbaugh Show.