FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Yellen’s Effed up Attack on Working People, Sad

Photo by DonkeyHotey | CC BY 2.0

Photo by DonkeyHotey | CC BY 2.0

Why did the Fed raise its benchmark interest rate when inflation is still running below the Fed’s target, workers wages have hardly budged and the economy is not even growing at 1 percent?

Yellen was asked that question at a press conference on Wednesday following the release of the FOMC’s statement. Her answer helps to show how the Fed makes its policy decisions based on factors most people would never consider. Here’s what she said:

Janet Yellen– “Well, look, our policy is not set in stone. It is data-dependent and we’re — we’re not locked into any particular policy path…As you said, the data have not notably strengthened.”

Translation– So after saying the Fed bases its decisions on the data, Yellen does a quick 180 and says the data hasn’t changed. Okay.

Janet Yellen– “There’s always noise in the data from quarter to quarter. But we haven’t changed our view of the outlook.”

Trans– The Fed expects economic growth will remain in the doldrums. (2 percent or less)

Janet Yellen– “We haven’t boosted the outlook, projected faster growth.”

Trans– The Fed is determined to maintain a slow-growth environment in order to continue its “easy money” policy which benefits Wall Street.

Janet Yellen– “We think we’re moving along the same course we’ve been on, but it’s one that involves gradual tightening in the labor market.”

Trans — Ah ha. Now we’re getting somewhere. Now we can see what the rate hike is really all about. It’s all about the minuscule improvements in the labor market. Yellen thinks the improvements are a big red flag.

Janet Yellen– “I would describe some measures of wage growth as having moved up some.”

Trans– Battle Stations! Battle Stations! Full Red Alert!

Janet Yellen– “Some measures haven’t moved up, but there’s is also suggestive of a strengthening labor market.”

Trans– “Suggestive”? In other words, the mere hint of improving conditions in the labor market –which could result in higher wages –is enough to send Yellen into a rate-hike frenzy? Is that what she’s saying?

Janet Yellen– “And we expect policy to remain accommodative now for some time.”

Trans– So don’t worry Wall Street, we’re not cutting off the flow of cheap money, we just need to tweak rates a bit to dampen the prospect of higher wages.

Janet Yellen– “So we’re talking about a gradual path of removing policy accommodation as the economy makes progress moving toward neutral.”

Trans– We’re keeping our eyes peeled for even the slightest uptick in wages, but we’ll continue to price cash below the rate of inflation so the investor class can make out like bandits.

Janet Yellen– “But we’re continuing to provide accommodation to the economy that’s allowing it to grow at an above-trend pace that’s consistent with further improvement in the labor market.”

Trans– We’ll make sure the economy doesn’t grow any faster than 2 percent GDP for the foreseeable future so we can continue to provide cheap credit to our constituents on Wall Street who need money that is priced below the rate of inflation to push stocks and bonds higher into the stratosphere. Also, we think that rising wages are merely a fleeting blip on the radar, even so, we are prepared to raise rates until the threat has been thoroughly extinguished.

So the Fed hasn’t changed its policy or its projections. Yellen basically raised rates because she had a ‘gut-feeling’ that the demand for labor is strengthening which means that wages could rise. (Her feelings on this matter are not supported by the data, but whatever.) As the primary steward of the system, it’s Yellen’s job to make sure that doesn’t happen. Any sign that of improvement in labor markets (like higher wages or, god forbid, rising standards of living) must be squelched before they ever get started. At the same time, the Fed has to balance its anti-worker duties with its stealth mandate to shower the investor class with below market-priced credit to help them game the system and rake off hefty profits. It’s a tough job, but the Fed has proved that it’s more than ready to meet the challenge.

The idea that the Fed is an impartial referee that serves the public by setting interest rates and regulating the financial system, is the nuttiest of all the conspiracy theories. The Fed is not only a creature of the banks, it is also the most destructive institution in the country today. Just look at the growing social unrest, the political instability and the sudden surge in right wing movements. Does anyone seriously believe these phenomena just popped out of nowhere? These are all the result of the gaping inequality that has emerged under the Fed’s malign stewardship. There’s nothing accidental in the way that wealth has been transferred from one class to another. It’s all part of a plan, a plan to enrich the few while everyone sees their incomes shrivel, their wages stagnate, the health care costs soar, their education expenses explode, their personal debts balloon, and their standards of living steadily decline.

Check out this chart from Bloomberg that shows with stunning clarity the real impact the Fed’s misguided policies. Rather than try to persuade readers that the Fed is a thoroughly corrupt and heinous institution that is a threat to every man, woman and child in the USA, I ask readers to study the chart and draw your own conclusions. The question that arises is this: Did the Fed choose the policy that would best serve the interests of the American people (by restoring economic growth and increasing employment) or did they choose a policy that they knew would maximize the profits for the investor class at the expense of everyone else?

You decide.

unnamed

One more thing: How much of our fractious and increasingly-polarized political culture is the result of economic and monetary policies that have intensified feelings of hopelessness among the public? Would the American people have voted for a rightwing demagogue unless they were so desperate about the slide in their standards of living that they felt compelled to look for remedies outside the political mainstream?
Isn’t it true that Donald Trump wouldn’t be president today if it wasn’t for the Fed?
Think about it.
More articles by:

MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com.

January 16, 2019
Edward Curtin
A Gentrified Little Town Goes to Pot
January 15, 2019
Patrick Cockburn
Refugees Are in the English Channel Because of Western Interventions in the Middle East
Howard Lisnoff
The Faux Political System by the Numbers
Lawrence Davidson
Amos Oz and the Real Israel
John W. Whitehead
Beware the Emergency State
John Laforge
Loudmouths against Nuclear Lawlessness
Myles Hoenig
Labor in the Age of Trump
Jeff Cohen
Mainstream Media Bias on 2020 Democratic Race Already in High Gear
Dean Baker
Will Paying for Kidneys Reduce the Transplant Wait List?
George Ochenski
Trump’s Wall and the Montana Senate’s Theater of the Absurd
Binoy Kampmark
Dances of Disinformation: the Partisan Politics of the Integrity Initiative
Glenn Sacks
On the Picket Lines: Los Angeles Teachers Go On Strike for First Time in 30 Years
Jonah Raskin
Love in a Cold War Climate
Andrew Stewart
The Green New Deal Must be Centered on African American and Indigenous Workers to Differentiate Itself From the Democratic Party
January 14, 2019
Kenn Orphan
The Tears of Justin Trudeau
Julia Stein
California Needs a 10-Year Green New Deal
Dean Baker
Declining Birth Rates: Is the US in Danger of Running Out of People?
Robert Fisk
The US Media has Lost One of Its Sanest Voices on Military Matters
Vijay Prashad
5.5 Million Women Build Their Wall
Nicky Reid
Lessons From Rojava
Ted Rall
Here is the Progressive Agenda
Robert Koehler
A Green Future is One Without War
Gary Leupp
The Chickens Come Home to Roost….in Northern Syria
Glenn Sacks
LA Teachers’ Strike: “The Country Is Watching”
Sam Gordon
Who Are Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionists?
Weekend Edition
January 11, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Richard Moser
Neoliberalism: Free Market Fundamentalism or Corporate Power?
Paul Street
Bordering on Fascism: Scholars Reflect on Dangerous Times
Joseph Majerle III – Matthew Stevenson
Who or What Brought Down Dag Hammarskjöld?
Jeffrey St. Clair - Joshua Frank
How Tre Arrow Became America’s Most Wanted Environmental “Terrorist”
Andrew Levine
Dealbreakers: The Democrats, Trump and His Wall
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Que Syria, Syria
Dave Lindorff
A Potentially Tectonic Event Shakes up the Mumia Abu-Jamal Case
Nick Pemberton
There Are More Important Things Than The Truth
Brian Cloughley
How Trump’s Insults and Lies are Harming America
David Rosen
Sexual Predators in the Era of Trump
Tamara Pearson
Everything the Western Mainstream Media Outlets Get Wrong When Covering Poor Countries
Richard E. Rubenstein
Trump vs. the Anti-Trumps: It’s the System That Needs Changing Not Just the Personnel
Christopher Ketcham
A Walk in the Woods, Away from the Screens
Basav Sen
Democrats Failed Their First Big Test on Climate
Lauren Smith
Nicaragua – The Irony of the NICA Act Being Signed into Law by Trump
Joseph Natoli
Will Trumpism Outlive Trump?
Olivia Alperstein
The EPA Rule Change That Could Kill Thousands
Medea Benjamin – Alice Slater
The New Congress Needs to Create a Green Planet at Peace
Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin
Cuba: Trump Turns the Vise
Ramzy Baroud
When Bolsonaro and Netanyahu Are ‘Brothers’: Why Brazil Should Shun the Israeli Model
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail