The Return of Stagflation

 The Mortgage Corner

“From the same month one year ago, the PCE price index for June increased 2.6 percent. Excluding food and energy, the PCE price index increased 2.8 percent from one year ago.” BEA.gov

FREDpceinflation

President Trump hasn’t succeeded in convincing the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates or fired Chairman Jerome Powell just yet. So he fired the head of the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics without cause that published the weak July unemployment report instead.

It is heralding another era of stagflation that has destroyed the wealth of too many Americans.

It now looks like he wants to recreate what happened to two other Republican Presidents—manipulating the data to disguise the fact that looming inflation can be a big problem as it was in the stagflation of the 1970s and housing bubble and Great Recession of 2008 that was the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

President Nixon first tried it when combatting the looming oil price-inspired inflation from the Arab Oil Embargo by fixing prices to keep them artificially low, then pushed his Fed Chair Arthur Burns to keep interest rates low in the face of slowing economic growth caused by the OPEC embargo.

It resulted in 14 percent inflation in 1980 that caused then Fed Chair Paul Volcker to raise the Fed Funds rate to 20 percent, resulting in two recessions early in President Reagan’s tenure.

President GW Bush also tried it in 2000 by pushing then Fed Chair Alan Greenspan to keep interest rates low to finance his wars on terror. Greenspan held interest rates too low for too long, which resulted in the housing bubble and Great Recession that followed.

And now Trump is looking for a successor to the Senate-vetted BLS official, Dr. Erika McEntarfer, who will manipulate employment statistics for him. The result will be less trusted unemployment reports, masking the effects of historically high tariffs that will again create product shortages and slow economic growth.

The Labor Department’s unemployment report understated what happened in the past three months, as I said last week. The U.S. economy created 73,000 nonfarm payroll jobs, but just 19,000 and 14,000 payroll jobs in revisions to May and June totals when more data came in (see graph).

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for May was revised down by 125,000, from +144,000 to +19,000, and the change for June was revised down by 133,000, from +147,000 to +14,000, per the BLS.

Trump’s main reason for wanting to manipulate economic facts? He also wants to hide the damage to the employment numbers from what could be the loss of one million immigrants leaving the adult labor force, many of them running for cover because of the Gestapo tactics of Trump’s Homeland Security masked Storm Troopers breaking into homes and businesses to round up as many undocumented immigrants as possible, as I said last Friday.

It’s really the first indication of the immigrant’s importance in our economy, and why most of July’s hiring was in healthcare (55,000) while government employment lost 12.000 jobs and -87,000 jobs this year.

The next economic shoe to drop will be the changing of the guard at the Federal Reserve. Trump could not bully Fed Chair Powell to lower interest rates sooner, but that will soon change when he appoints a new Fed Chairman.

He will want to politicize the Fed as he is doing to the rest of the federal government when Powell steps down next year, so that he can enact more Republican ‘trickle down’ economic policies first initiated by President Reagan: in particular the tax cuts + deregulation that supposedly increases efficiencies and productivity, but instead increased corporate CEO pay to more than 300 times that of their employees while weakening union collective bargaining laws.

The results of ‘trickle-down’ economics have been frightfully obvious for decades. The Reagan-era creation has succeeded in maximizing profits of the owners of capital and corporate CEOs while suppressing incomes of salaried workers via right to work laws and low minimum wages, mostly in the poorest Republican controlled red states.

It’s why economists are now calling this the second Gilded Age. We are seeing the results—higher inflation and slowing economic growth once again unless a majority of Americans can be convinced to stop the steal of the worst robber baron of all.

Harlan Green © 2023

Follow Harlan Green on: https://twitter.com/HarlanGreen

Wh Needs a Tax Cut?

 Popular Economics Weekly

“A bill that cuts federal income taxes for middle-class families makes absolutely no sense, except as a sad way of camouflaging the real intent of the bill: Giving millions of dollars to the very wealthy, who happen to be the only people who are really benefiting from our uneven economic growth,” Rex Nutting

Huffington Post

I wrote this Huffington Post piece in 2017 during President Trump’s first term when he passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) that is set to expire but is being renewed if Republicans succeed in passing their new fiscal budget.

But in seeking to repeat Trump’s first term, Trump and his Republicans are regressing to an economic model that existed more than 100 years ago, and that is completely out of touch with the modern world.

His tax cut helped very few income earners, i.e., ordinary working folk. MarketWatch economist Rex Nutting calculated that those in the 60 percent middle-income brackets—from $32,000 to $140,000 per year—pay just an average 2.5 percent in income taxes. It’s only the richest 0.1 to 1 percent income earners that pay more and therefore want the huge tax cuts Congress and the Trump administration are proposing.

The TCJA renewal in 2025 will add at least $3 trillion to our federal debt in the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and raise our federal debt from 120 percent to as much as 130 to 150 percent of GDP because Republicans have no mechanism to pay for it, except higher import taxes from the tariffs and cuts to health care services such as Medicaid.

Hence the just announced sovereign debt downgrade of Moody’s AAA to Aaa, the last debt rating agency that held a AAA rating on U.S. Treasury debt, which will raise the cost of U.S, Treasury securities.

The tariff war that Trump illegally initiated with the dubious rationale that it will bring back a bygone era of manufacturing (Congress has the power to regulate tariffs during wartime emergencies but they have since allowed presidents to enact them during peacetime), will cause another period of stagflation as happened in the 1970s that took 10 years and double-digit interest rates to cure.

How soon voters and investors have forgotten what stagflation was like! The Federal Reserve under Chairman Paul Volcker raised its Fed Funds rate to 20 percent in the 1980s because inflation had risen to 14 percent rate and resulted in two back-to-back recessions under President Reagan.

“Top this off with another record for corporate profits, up 7.4 percent in a year, and there is no reason to be cutting their taxes,” I said in 2017. “They haven’t been using their profits for productive purposes, so what’s needed is for them to pay higher taxes so government can use that money to invest productively in the $2 trillion plus in outmoded infrastructure that badly needs replacement,”

And that’s precisely what the Biden administration did, pass bipartisan legislation that invested $2 trillion in the Infrastructure, CHIPs and Science, and Inflation Acts to modernize the U.S. economy.

Yet voters re-elected a man in Trump 2.0 that is returning the budget and tax cut debate to an earlier historical period. President Trump is now touting the need for another Gilded Age that prevailed in 1900 when tariffs protected fledgling industries.

Tariffs became less important with the introduction of income taxes in 1913 to support government services, and the trend since then has been downward to the very low rates that prevailed until now.

Then why have so many Americans re-elected someone who is only interested in reducing taxes to enrich himself and his Oligarchs; who has shown an almost total ignorance of basic economics (in maintaining a tariff isn’t an import tax) with a history of countless business failures, and that is causing investors to flee the US economy and impoverish the rest of us?

Will it take another recession to convince voters once again that One-man rule doesn’t work if Americans still want to live and prosper in a democracy?

Harlan Green © 2025

Follow Harlan Green on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HarlanGreen

Can We Prevent Stagflation?

 Popular Economics Weekly

During the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, Arab members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) imposed an embargo against the United States in retaliation for the U.S. decision to re-supply the Israeli military and to gain leverage in the post-war peace negotiations…The onset of the embargo contributed to an upward spiral in oil prices with global implications. The price of oil per barrel first doubled, then quadrupled, imposing skyrocketing costs on consumers and structural challenges to the stability of whole national economies. history,state.gov

BEA.gov

The 1970s stagflation, a combination of stagnant growth and high inflation, was not a happy time. It caused then Federal Reserve Chair Paul Volcker to raise the Fed Funds rate to as high as 20 percent to tame the inflation tiger in the 1980s and many bank failures.  

It might happen again, but not because of an energy shortage. Friday’s report on the Commerce Department’s Personal Consumption Expenditure Index (PCE) raised alarms that inflation was on the rise, which is one of the two main components of stagflation. Inflation hasn’t been tamed, as it rose 2.5 percent, 2.8 percent without food and energy prices, per the BEA graph.

Stagflation last happened in the 1970s because of the 1973-74 Arab oil embargo that caused gas stations to run out of gas and consumer prices to soar. It ultimately resulted in a 14.8 percent CPI inflation rate in 1980. And it was more than a decade before inflation and interest rates dropped back to single digits, and we lived through three recessions.

This was also the beginning of the Second Gilded Age so well documented by political scientists Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson in Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer—and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class that was initiated by President Reagan and supported by the Business Roundtable of Chief corporate Executives.

It began the huge transfer of wealth from wage earning Americans to the owners of capital with successive tax cuts and restrictions on labor organizing, as well as the massive deregulation of industries such as the airlines and telecommunications.

US Corporations took advantage of the globalization of technologies and began the massive move of factories overseas, along with the blue-collar jobs that had built middle America, to countries with cheaper wages and fewer environmental regulations.

The gutting of rust belt jobs in the Midwest resulted in the red state-blue state split we have today, with right to work laws in those states that restrict the right of unions to collect dues from their members, many with wages still stuck at the national $7.25 per hour minimum wage.

This is while economic growth, the other main element of stagflation, is slowing. Why? Consumers are not happy with the high prices and economic uncertainty caused by Trump’s tariffs and Elon Musk’s DOGE massive job cuts, so they aren’t spending as they did in the past, and consumers are the main driver of economic growth.

The loss of tens of thousands of federal jobs and depopulating the service sector industry, the fastest growing economic sector that depends on undocumented workers, will do the same.

This is reflected in falling consumer confidence. The University of Michigan’s final February survey said: “Consumer sentiment extended its early month decline, sliding nearly 10% from January. The decrease was unanimous across groups by age, income, and wealth. All five index components deteriorated this month, led by a 19% plunge in buying conditions for durables, in large part due to fears that tariff induced price increases are imminent.

All of these factors make a reduction in first quarter economic growth more likely. In fact, the Atlanta Fed’s estimate of first quarter growth declined further into negative territory.

The GDPNow model estimate for real GDP growth (seasonally adjusted annual rate) in the first quarter of 2025 is -2.8 percent on March 28, down from -1.8 percent on March 26. The alternative model forecast, which adjusts for imports and exports of gold as described here, is -0.5 percent.

Can we prevent a recurrence, in which we again have double digit inflation and slow to no growth? Trump would have to learn how to negotiate with congress rather than issue unlawful executive orders and take away Elon Musk’s chainsaw for that to happen.

Harlan Green © 2025

Follow Harlan Green on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HarlanGreen

New Fannie, Freddie Regulator Won’t Cut Loan Limits

The Mortgage Corner

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — This headline just out.  Mortgage-finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac won’t be directed to lower the limits for mortgages that they back, the new head of their federal regulator said Tuesday. In a departure from his predecessor, Mel Watt, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, is generally seen as favoring efforts to maintain borrowers’ access to credit, rather than focusing on winding down the government sponsored enterprises.

This is terrific news for the housing market, needless to say. One of the first actions by President Obama’s appointee to run the Federal Housing Finance Authority (FHFA) is to make it easier for home borrowers and buyers to obtain conforming mortgages—mortgages that are guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and which comprise more than 60 percent of mortgages issued these days.

The conforming limits will therefore still be $417,000 for the best conforming rates—3.875 percent with 1 origination point for 30-year fixed rates in California today—and $625,500 for so-called Hi-Balance conforming loans—now at 4.125 percent for 0 points origination in California.

“This decision is motivated by concerns about how such a reduction could adversely impact the health of the current housing finance market,” Watt said Tuesday at a Brookings Institution event.

This is while Congress and the White House work on housing-finance reform, with the Obama administration still trying to shut down Fannie and Freddie, even though they are the only agencies willing to guarantee 30-year fixed rate mortgages for middle class homeowners and buyers, and thus are the reason housing is recovering at all.

It is the misguided belief that allowing Fannie Mae to disappear—the Federal National Mortgage Association formed during the New Deal—and Freddie Mac, or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, formed in the 1970s to further affordable housing—will no longer make the government responsible for keeping a viable housing market for most Americans.

Graph: Calculated Risk

But that is flatly wrong. Without some kind of federal ‘backstop’ that guarantees both mortgage quality and assurance that banks will continue to lend mortgages, we would not have the housing market and a homeownership rate of today. The early 1980s were the best example of banks and lenders refusing or unable to issue new mortgages when then Fed Chairman Volcker raised interest rates above 16 percent to combat inflation.

The foreclosure rate for conforming loans has always been the lowest of any conventional loans. Fannie Mae reported recently that the Single-Family Serious Delinquency rate declined in March to 2.19 percent from 2.27 percent in February. The serious delinquency rate is down from 3.02 percent in March 2013, and this is the lowest level since November 2008.
And Freddie Mac also reported that the Single-Family serious delinquency rate declined in March to 2.20 percent from 2.29 percent in February. Freddie's rate is down from 3.03 percent in March 2013, and is at the lowest level since February 2009. Freddie's serious delinquency rate peaked in February 2010 at 4.20 percent.

So their foreclosure rates are close to the historical average of 1 percent, whereas other ‘private label’ mortgages (those mostly portfolio loan issued and held by banks) have remained above 4 percent.

The FHFA is looking at making sure that the companies operate safely in the current environment, Watt said. Watt, who has been noticeably absent until now from the debate over how to reform the U.S. housing market, said Tuesday that the FHFA has three goals: maintain, reduce and build.

“Since any stumbles along the way could have ripple effects in the $10 trillion housing finance market, there’s a lot at stake in getting this right,” Watt said. But getting it right doesn’t mean the federal government shouldn’t have the responsibility to maintain the viability of homeownership, a responsibility it has kept since the 1930s.

Harlan Green © 2014

Follow Harlan Green on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HarlanGreen

Saving Fannie and Freddie Mac

The Mortgage Corner

Fannie Mae (FNMA), or Federal National Mortgage Association, reported a record profit for 2012, a good reason to save the mortgage giant from dissolution, as the banking industry in particular has lobbied for. The government-sponsored enterprise had net income of $17.2 billion for 2012, outpacing profits at S&P 500 companies such as Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT), General Electric Co. and Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK/A).

Fannie Mae’s net income for 2012 compared with a loss of $16.9 billion in 2011, the company said in a statement. Profits totaled $7.6 billion for the three months ended Dec. 31 after accounting for a $4.2 billion dividend payment to the Treasury Department for the government’s stake. So it can begin to payoff the $188 billion borrowed from the U.S. Treasury to keep the mortgage industry—and so housing—afloat.

There is another reason to save Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from complete dissolution. Their underwriting standards are the highest and have resulted in the lowest default rates of all mortgages. Fannie Mae reported that the Single-Family Serious Delinquency rate declined in February to 3.13 percent from 3.18 percent in January. The serious delinquency rate is down from 3.82 percent in February 2012, and this is the lowest level since February 2009. Its serious delinquency rate peaked in February 2010 at 5.59 percent.

Graph: Calculated Risk

Fannie Mae serious delinquencies averaged below 1 percent until 2008, the beginning of the housing bubble bust. Whereas the average delinquency rate for all Private Label Mortgages today is 6.8 percent, as many of them are the so-called liar loans that didn’t require either income for asset verification.

Earlier Freddie Mac (FHLMC), or Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, the other GSE under government conservatorship, reported that the Single-Family serious delinquency rate declined in February to 3.15 percent from 3.20 percent in January. Freddie's rate is down from 3.57 percent in February 2012, and this is the lowest level since July 2009. Freddie's serious delinquency rate peaked in February 2010 at 4.20 percent.

Banks have been lobbying for years to either downsize or abolish the government-owned GSEs, as we said. But that would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. For it was subprime lending that created the housing bubble with it minimal or nonexistent qualifying criteria, such as the ‘stated income’, or ‘no income’ verification requirements of so-called Option ARMs that allowed minimal payments for the first 4 years, before payments rose enough to begin to pay down principal balance.

Their argument has been that Fannie and Freddie are taking business away from private banking. They have claimed that the “implicit” government guarantee against default of the GSEs has given them a profit edge. But without Fannie and Freddie, there would be no viable housing market. We know this because of what banks did in the 1980s, when Fed Chairman Paul Volcker raised interest rates into double digits.

Banks then withdrew almost completely from mortgage lending, so the GSEs stepped in by creating a secondary market that packaged and sold mortgages to investors—either to Wall Street, or Main Street pension funds. That enabled the real estate industry to recover from the 1981 and 1983 Reagan recessions.

So the banking industry has been very fickle when it comes to mortgage lending. In fact, the subprime fiasco resulted from overleveraged banks taking advantage of soaring housing prices at the same time that financial markets were deregulating. Banks created the so-called shadow banking system outside of any regulatory oversight, which is responsible for much of the shadow housing inventory still on their books—an estimated 5 million homes either delinquent or with negative equity in their homes in danger of foreclosure.

There is in fact good reason for banks to lend again with interest rates still at record lows and housing prices beginning to rise again. A mortgage banking industry has grown around the secondary market, and as long as banks will adhere to the same gold standard underwriting as Fannie and Freddie, there is no reason they shouldn’t be generating record profits, as well.

Harlan Green © 2013

Follow Harlan Green on Twitter: www.twitter.com/HarlanGreen

Who is Elizabeth Warren?

Financial FAQs

Now that Elizabeth Warren, Harvard Law Professor (Contracts) and creator of the barely born Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, is running for Ted Kennedy’s former Senate seat, she should receive the attention she deserves. Professor Warren is perhaps the most eloquent spokesperson for rebalancing 30 years of policies that tilted income and wealth from the middle class to the investor class (i.e, to producers/investors, rather than consumers) of our economy.

A recent New York Times’ editorial said it best: “Ms. Warren talks about the nation’s growing income inequality in a way that channels the force of the Occupy Wall Street movement but makes it palatable and understandable to a far wider swath of voters. She is provocative and assertive in her critique of corporate power and the well-paid lobbyists who protect it in Washington, and eloquent in her defense of an eroding middle class.”

But really, even the New York Times misses the point. Not only has income inequality destabilized our financial system, but the economy as a whole. Don’t take my word for it. Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich, and many others have pointed out the results of too much inequality that puts us near the bottom of developed countries. We are 97^th of the 136 countries ranked—next to Cameroon and a handful of other African countries, according to the CIA Factbook.

The more frequent financial destabilizations of late are but a symptom, while the redistribution of wealth itself is the core illness that has in fact directly lowered economic growth by reducing overall aggregate demand—which is the willingness of consumers, investors and government to spend or invest.

In other words, the supply-side theories implemented by Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan, et. al., have taken away the wealth of those who create most demand—middle class wage and salary earners. Their incomes have become stagnant, and may result in a permanent underclass, if Elizabeth Warren doesn’t have her way.

The remedies are available. Bring back a more progressive tax structure that existed even as recently as the Clinton era. And re-regulate the banking and shadow banking systems as mandated by Dodd-Frank—specifically implement the so-called Volcker Rule that won’t allow banks to trade for their own profit—as well as other measures that reduce the size of the too-big-to-fail financial sector. The bloated financial sector was the real cause of the Great Recession, and reducing it will return resources and capital taken away from the productive sectors of our economy.

Professor Warren fought this battle when creating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is within the U.S. Treasury. Her message was simple in creating the Bureau: the consumer “market” for financial products does not operate like a proper market because leading firms (bigger banks and also nonbanks, like some payday lenders) have figured out how to make a great deal of money by confusing their customers.

“If someone attempted to sell boxed cereal in the same fashion that many financial products are now sold, that person would be drummed out of the cereal business.  The norms of that sector (and many other nonfinancial sectors in the United States) would not stand for this degree of deception and malpractice”, said one critic of the successful Republican campaign against her nomination as first Bureau Director.

Transparency is an issue with all financial markets, not just mortgage and payday loans, of course. The multi-trillion dollar derivatives’ business is controlled by a self-appointed consortium of the major banks. And they have resisted providing a record of their transactions to a central clearing house, a provision of the Dodd-Frank bill that is still being developed.

So let us listen to Elizabeth Warren for Massachusetts Senator in her campaign to reoccupy Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat. The principles she espouses to restore the middle class will actually restore economic growth for all of us, if carried out.

Harlan Green © 2011