We've had an unprecedented three consecutive years now where inflation has remained higher than the 10-year UST yield on an average annual basis, and our hapless FOMC looks set to make it four

 There were just two years of this in the 1970s inflation, and they too were consecutive.

Anyone who calls Jerome Powell an inflation fighter is an idiot, or a stooge for the status quo of inflation profiteers.

This is all on the backs of the people, but where is the angry mob?

So medicated, so drugged, and so otherwise anesthetized by bread and circuses that the elites don't even bother to hide the truth.

 

Core inflation higher than DGS10 yield in 2020, 2021, 2022 (annual average)

Core inflation higher than DGS10 yield January through July 2023 (monthly view)

Already there, Senator

Said Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., “The shutdown will eventually take us to a place where the average American is angry at and sick of all of us.”

 

 

Like just about everyone else on the left, Joel Kotkin continues to twist himself in pretzels to avoid calling our system what it already is

State capitalism.

It is the socialism of the right, despite what names people may give it. The fascist model in which business and government cooperate now more, now less was not defeated in World War II. The superior American version simply defeated the German one, and eventually also the left's inherently weaker version in Russia.

It has triumphed globally, brought to the fore in America by the libertarian resurgence under Ronald Reagan, imitated by the jealous Euro project, and notably exported to China, where it was eagerly embraced as no threat to Marxism. To the genuine Marxist, remember, free-trade is welcome because it hastens the global revolution. Belt and Road participants, take note.

The experiential groundwork for global state capitalism was laid long ago by the King and Bank of England in their joint enterprise known as the Thirteen Colonies. Everyone imitates this now in principle if not always in particulars. But everywhere it flourishes it is facilitated by the same thing, the central banking systems which coordinate their activities through rules administered under Basel III. The contemporary exemplars of state capitalism fancy that they are substantively a world away from Hitler's Germany, because, well, the Jews. We don't kill Jews, insist these experts at mass abortion and Uyghur mass re-education. 

It's the historical resonances which bother the left in using the phrase, but the underlying facts aren't different in substance. Materialism today means not having to say you're sorry for treating people like depreciated or unappreciated assets. Older workers in the West are routinely tossed aside for being too costly. Potential younger competitors are hamstrung by a culture of costly credentialing prerequisites. When such people become worthless enough, it isn't unlikely that in some places they could stop being considered people altogether (typically where atheism reigns) so that they could be slaughtered wholesale with the same relative efficiency already applied to the unborn. The tech already exists to do this. The only question is when will the people exist who are possessed of enough nerve.   

Here's Kotkin on this so-called "new, innovative approach" which looks like nothing so much as the old Soviet Union, with its hostility centered on the middle class, its dreary blocks of drab apartment buildings, the dim pall of surveillance and conformity lurking everywhere, complete with its own privileged new class in service to the party .01 percent:

Oligarchal socialism allows for the current, ever-growing concentration of wealth and power in a few hands — notably tech and financial moguls — while seeking ways to ameliorate the reality of growing poverty, slowing social mobility and indebtedness. This will be achieved not by breaking up or targeting the oligarchs, which they would fight to the bitter end, but through the massive increase in state taxpayer support. ... [T]he tech oligarchy — the people who run the five most capitalized firms on Wall Street — have [sic] a far less egalitarian vision. ... [T]hey see government spending as a means of keeping the populist pitchforks away. ... Handouts, including housing subsidies, could guarantee for the next generation a future not of owned houses, but rented small, modest apartments. ...  They appeal to progressives by advocating politically correct views . . .. Faced with limited future prospects, more millennials already prefer socialism to capitalism and generally renounce constitutionally sanctioned free speech . . .. [I]ncreased income guarantees, nationalized health care, housing subsidies, rent control and free education could also help firms maintain a gig-oriented [slave] economy since these employers do not provide the basic benefits often offered by more traditional “evil” corporations . . ..  [T]he oligarchy, representing basically the top .01 percent of the population, are primarily interested not in lower taxes but in protecting their market shares and capital. ... The losers here will be our once-protean middle class. Unlike the owners of corporations in the past, oligarchs have no interest in their workers become homeowners or moving up the class ladder. Their agenda instead is forever-denser, super-expensive rental housing for their primarily young, and often short-term, employees. ... The tech moguls get to remain wealthy beyond the most extreme dreams of avarice, while their allies in progressive circles and the media, which they increasingly own, continue to hector everyone else about giving up their own aspirations. All the middle and upwardly mobile working class gets is the right to pay ever more taxes, while they watch many of their children devolve into serfs, dependent on alms and subsidies for their survival.

San Jose's mayor Sam Liccardo projects a safer city for Democrats only, not for Donald Trump and his supporters

An angry mob pelted eggs, tomatoes, and bottles at the [Trump] spectators—as well as the police, who tried (and failed) to maintain some semblance of order. Other Trump supporters were set upon and punched. One was left with blood streaming down his face. ... "At some point Donald Trump needs to take responsibility for the irresponsible behavior of his campaign," the [Clinton Democrat] mayor said.

More here.

Paladins of Economics Eschew the Mob and Excuse the Fed

So says Brian Domitrovic for Forbes, who thinks the Fed's bad habits are congenital.

Domitrovic calls attention to the glaring omission of monetary reform in Mitt Romney's economic proposals, about which his hundreds of recent endorsers from the economics profession have likewise said not a word:

This is a worrisome tendency in economics, on two counts. The first is that the vox populi is probably onto something. Why should the profession risk being wrong on such an important issue?

There is perhaps no institution in our government that has been so cornered by economists as the Fed. The Fed is the place most dominated by the credentialed Ph.D.’s of the profession. It would rankle economists to concede that despite this capture of the Fed by their ranks, the Fed was at fault for causing the worst economic crisis in eons. It would implicate the profession in the whole mess.

Gee, just maybe it's because the capture has gone precisely in the other direction: economics professionals profit from the status quo which puts them in the center of the system which puts them and their friends first in line for the funny money. Why do you think people so desperately worship the presidency in this society, and so desperately want to possess it?

Read the whole thing here.

Romney's Sins

In no particular order. Just making my list . . . and checking it twice.

• thinks the 1st Amendment is first
• wants to index the minimum wage to inflation
• supports ethanol subsidies
• flipped on abortion at least 3 times
• supported Obama's murder of an American citizen
• supports TARP
• has a weird religion
• thinks W prevented a depression
• believes in the individual mandate in principle
• was soft on public unions in Ohio
• thinks government coercion in healthcare is conservative
• believes in progressive income taxation
• reassures liberals by pledging to soften up conservatives
• reassures liberals that Republicans like him can make liberal extremism seem almost mainstream
• supports domestic partner benefits
• thinks it's a good idea to shift away from fossil fuels
• he's way too rich to lead the charge to abolish the progressive tax code even if he wanted to
• the world's getting warmer and humans contribute to that
• farm subsidies are a national security issue
• supports No Child Left Behind
• agrees with Milos Forman: Obama's no socialist
• Bain Capital bailed out companies just like Obama bailed out GM and Chrysler
• corporate restructuring is job creation
• "We must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern"
• "ObamaCare is not worth getting angry about"
• "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush"
• "Fox is watched by the true believers"
• spending cuts will cause a recession or even a depression
• gladly accepts support of John McCain in 2012 even though McCain said in 2010 that Obama's was a left-wing crusade to bankrupt America
• won't light his hair on fire for that angry mob, the Republican base

Dick Bove Sounds Just Like George Bush: We Tampered With LIBOR To Save The Banks

The hypocrisy just never ends. It gets so common no one has the energy left from all the outrage to pick up a torch and a pitchfork anymore. The whole industry is corrupt and all we can hope for is God sends a meteor attack to destroy them all, preferably at the opening bell.

Dick Bove, quoted in a story here:

Bove acknowledged holding what "may be a contradictory stance," but he is sticking to it.

"It will be recalled that the regulators were dealing with a significant financial crisis. To stem the panic, they lowered interest rates, invested in banks, loaned trillions of dollars to these institutions and guaranteed trillions more in bank liabilities," he said in an analysis for clients.

"If the dollar Libor rate had risen sharply in this period all of this activity would not have succeeded."

Every time some new misdeed is discovered we're told that it was necessary to bend the rules in order to keep everything from falling apart.

We're nearly four years on from the onset of the panic, and here we have a leading cheerleader for the banking industry telling us that suppressing LIBOR was necessary to save the system. I seem to recall that was the argument for TARP which relieved NOT ONE SINGLE TOXIC ASSET, and for the Fed opening the discount window to the world with nearly $10 trillion in liquidity loans at ultra-low rates homeowners will never get, and for every other violation of the principles of free markets we have witnessed under Republicans and Democrats alike, all of which amounts to the biggest fascist swindle ever perpetrated on a once free people.

A pox on all your houses! 

"Look. I obviously have made a decision to make sure the economy doesn't collapse. I have abandoned free market principles to save the free market system. Having said that, I'm very confident that with time the economy will come out and grow and people's wealth will return."

-- President Bush, 2008

Banking Since 1913 In A Nutshell

From Daniel Oliver at Myrmikan Capital, here: 

Like any Ponzi scheme, the fractional reserve system must periodically collapse because wealth creation cannot stem from an eternal expansion of credit. Betrayed and confused, the little people march into the halls of power and hang the perpetrators from the nearest lamp posts. ...

When the next crisis comes, as it must, the central banks of the world will face the same choice as in 2008, only on a larger scale. They will have to decide whether to allow the major banks to fail, wiping out trillions of dollars of paper wealth and plunging the globe into a 1931-style bond market failure depression, or to print money on an even larger scale.

That crisis may be here now, which, perhaps, is what the gold markets have been telegraphing for months. ... 

Romney Views Republican Base As Angry Mob With A Beef Against Obama

Except he's not going there.

Remarks quoted here:

“It’s very easy to excite the base with incendiary comments,” he told reporters. “We’ve seen throughout the campaign that if you’re willing to say really outrageous things that are accusatory and attacking President Obama, that you’re going to jump up in the polls. You know, I’m not willing to light my hair on fire to try and get support.”

But you already knew that:

O’Reilly: Is he a socialist?
Romney: You know, I prefer to use the term that he’s just over his head.
O’Reilly: Yeah, but you got to look at his economic plan. An economic plan that’s top down, federal leadership, getting us out of the recession--- he spent trillions of dollars on that. And people say, Listen, the guy’s a socialist — it’s class warfare that’s what he’s gonna wage against you if you get the nomination: You’re a rich guy, you’re out of touch. Is he a socialist?
Romney: Uh, you know, I consider him a big-government liberal Democrat. I think as you look at his policies, you conclude that he thinks Europe got it right and we got it wrong. I think Europe got it wrong. I think Europe is not working in Europe. And I’ll battle him on that day in and day out. But I’m probably not going to be calling him names so much as calling him a failure.


Like John McCain before him, who refused to criticize Obama or even question his political beliefs, Romney is out of step with the American people, the majority of whom believe "socialist" is a fitting moniker for President Obama:

Tomorrow Is Election Day: Time To Become A . . .

Financial Reform: Of Torches And Pitchforks

Edward Harrison of creditwritedowns.com weighs in on the Goldman case, but can't quite bring himself to commit to the view that this is all just for show and will do nothing but continue the lie that is America and the farce of extend and pretend in particular which government has modeled for decades, and the consumer, business and the banking system have dutifully imitated in their turn. Abandon hope all ye who enter here: Everything Obama says comes with an expiration date. The following excerpts come from here:As I left for the conference, I chatted with a friend who is far from the financial sector. Her take puts this debate into perspective. The issues are pretty easy to understand:We have had an economic crisis the likes of which we haven’t seen since the Great Depression. People are still losing their jobs and homes as a direct result of the boom and bust caused by the financial sector. Yet, we have bailed the banks out with taxpayer money and the bankers act like they never needed the bailout, didn’t cause the crisis or some other ridiculous argument of that ilk. In fact, they are rewarding themselves with huge bonuses while everyone else is still in a world of hurt.Forget about whether these arguments make any sense. They don’t. The only thing ordinary Americans need to know is that these people are paying themselves obscene amounts of money while everyone else is suffering despite the fact that we bailed them out of the crisis they caused. That’s the pitchfork thesis in a nutshell.  All of the other stuff is a sideshow. Johnson confirmed that this is exactly what people have been telling him in his book signings all across America. To my mind, this is what the Goldman fraud case is all about. Do you think the political payoff would be as high for going after JPMorgan Chase? Goldman is the vampire squid in mainstream America’s eyes and the Feds know this. That is why they have been targeted.

Imposing A Century-Old Urge To Regiment Reality

Don't let the beginning fool you. The passage of just a few hours time has changed things, but not enough of them. By the time you get to the end of the article, you'll be running to find your pitchfork and a torch.

One of the finest writers around anywhere, Patrick McIlheran in "Health Care Designed in a Rug Bazaar" found here puts his finger on the wealth redistribution which is fundamental to the healthcare reform:

Congressional accountants say the cost of health care subsidies will rise 8% a year. ...

[T]he bill will mask this fundamental problem by taking money from some Americans - for instance, by more heavily taxing investments, and isn't that how to grow an economy? - and giving it to others. Families making $80,000 a year would get subsidies. By its design, the plan enshrines the idea that you consume health care someone else buys, the very mechanism leading to spiraling costs.

This plan is not single-payer, but it's not the improved market that backers claim. It is a parody of a market. You cannot choose to buy coverage but must buy it. Washington will design the plans - low-cost, high-deductible coverage, for instance, will be practically impossible. The prices will be controlled. The doctors will be told how to practice.

Your government will command, prohibit or direct every move in the belief that you're an incorrigible slob and your doctor is a fool. This plan does not build a single-payer hell, but pervasive bureaucratic control amounts to grading the site for it.

None of this is even new. By backers' own admission, they're doing what Teddy Roosevelt wanted to do 100 years ago. This is the imposition of a century-old urge to regiment reality. Previous half-steps toward that got us the mess we're in now, so how will this bring anything but disaster?

Follow the link for the rest.