Prediction: this causes a recession in two years, right after a Democrat wins the White House, who will be blamed for it. The economy will turn around after a few years, just in time for a Republican to win and claim they fixed it.
This is how Republicans have a reputation for being economically savvy despite actual evidence to the contrary, because the general population doesn’t understand that economics runs on a time delay.
A 0.25% rate hike is going to cause a recession? How, exactly, would that happen?
Honestly it seems your post is heavy on politics but I am not seeing an actual argument anywhere in there.
My canned response to people being upset at various policies or ratios, whether it is inflation, or bond yields, or market movements, is to ask them what they think the correct value should be. Stop complaining about the movement and instead ask them for their target. You think a 4% FedFunds is too high or too low? What do you think the correct value is and why? You think the stock market is too high or too low, what do you think the correct value of the index should be?
Most people, who were just moments ago vociferously complaining about a movement, when asked this question fall silent, because they have no idea what the target should be, and because they have no idea about the target, they really have no business complaining about movement. Instead, they use the movement as a springboard to air their ideological beefs. But if you are going to tie some thesis to a rate hike, you better be able to explain what you think the correct rate should be and why. I'm waiting.
Personally, I think a 4% rate is perfectly fine. 5% may even be warranted, and historically this has not been a high rate, if you assume, say, 2.5% inflation and 2% GDP growth, this is a pretty reasonable place to be.
Bond prices shooting up is a result of market losing trust in US, or it's ability to not default.
Dollar is famous backed by $700T military. But the world has seen how it failed to secure a strait.
The current US government has broken all kind of promises. I want to highlight two in particular - free trade and immigration.
World economy has benefited for decades on the promises of free trade. The tariffs have eroded the promise and trust.
The government is also openly supporting elements who are hostile to immigrants. Immigrants are the backbone of US economy, has been for over hundred years. Immigrating to the US requires years of preparation, long term planning, and giving up on other luxuries and opportunities. When the government starts breaking promises by changing rules and moving the goalposts overnight, it discourages participation.
The dollar is not "backed" by a military. China has a huge military and no one uses the Yuan for third party trade. Why not? Because China does not run trade deficits that allow third parties to acquire the Yuan in the first place, it does not have open capital markets that allow third parties to store their surpluses in Yuan, and it does not have the investor protections that give investors confidence that they can pull their savings out whenever they want.
You know a nation that does have those things other than the US? Switzerland, which is why a lot of people use swiss Francs, even though Switzerland does not have a huge military. People need to stop reading Graber and others who have no economic training and don't understand global balance of payment accounting. Having a large military does not translate into people wanting your currency, otherwise China, North Korea, and Russia would have well used international currencies, rather than being forced to use the currency of their rivals.
The petrodollar system resolved the 70s inflation crisis after Nixon sent the head of the CIA to Saudi Arabia. The US military backed revolutionaries during the arab spring because the dead dictators wanted to start a pan-african currency with which to trade oil. Iran, Venezuela and Russia were under sanctions and treated as enemies in very big part because they were selling oil for other currencies than the USD.
The US dollar is propped up by constant US dollar liquidity related to the fact that you need it to trade significant quantities of oil with the vast majority of producers. That situation was held up by the US' military might. Starting shit with Iran and being unable to finish it means there's no reason for oil producing countries to keep financing american debt on the cheap. What are they going to do? Restrict their own access to crude?
There's more to it, but the USD for gas scheme is a big structural chunk of the financial house of card. You break that and the rest won't hold up very long. And it's not like other structural parts of what makes the USD the global reserve currency aren't getting eroded either. Fed independence stands there glaringly obvious.
Your points are valid. But there's a reason why dollar is "petrodollar" - when we say it's backed by US military it's really the axis of US-Israel-Saudi Arabia which control military as well as resources. People use US dollar not necessarily because they want, but because they have to. I also do not know who Graber is but I'll look it up.
A 0.25% rate hike might be the straw that breaks the camel's back. There are a lot of stressors on the economy right now. I don't think it's going to take too many more to tip it. And once it tips, it'll pop bubbles that'll magnify the recession significantly.
> is to ask them what they think the correct value should be
This is Hacker News, we should understand what a PID controller is.
The economy is the "plant". The variable of interest, inflation, is the output of the plant. The government interest rate is the input. As inflation varies around the target FOMC rate, the Fed adjusts the rate. If inflation is over 2%, we should expect rate hikes, regardless of what the current rate is.
This is a fairly simple and very effective system that has worked in most Western countries and the Eurozone since the 90s.
However, note that the "recession" claim is also partly correct: the reason rate hikes work to reduce inflation is that they move the economy growth rate down, in the direction of (but not necessarily into!) recession.
Bring this energetic criticism onto Warsh, whose speech was nauseatingly political in comparison to his predecessor. Paraphrasing ~ “I’m not data-driven, I’m trend-driven”. Frankly speaking, he sounded like a dumbass who failed his way upwards into a position of meaningful power, much like the rest of the government at the moment. Warsh also refused to give a target or a forecast.
The OP that you’re criticizing is simply making a prediction, and he doesn’t work at the fed.
It was hard to watch and ended abruptly. Perhaps the only 2 reporters that kind of tried to challenge the contradictions in his approach were Nick Timiraos and Michael McKee.
I think that one obvious question that no one asked him, is why not cancel the post FOMC press conference if he opposes forward guidance and won't even explain what data guides his vote when asked about it.
>My canned response to people being upset at various policies or ratios, whether it is inflation, or bond yields, or market movements, is to ask them what they think the correct value should be.
Maybe find a better canned response? US debt has never been higher, and because of this even rates that are below historic highs can cause economic chaos.
Did you ever think that the reason why US debt is so high is because rates are so low and borrowing is so cheap? Higher rates are needed, and are really the only mechanism to reduce borrowing.
We are seeing asset bubbles across the board in this economy, in housing, in equities, auto loans, etc. It turns out that if you make something cheap, people buy more of it, and that includes the government.
I agree with you, and this is much better than your previous "canned response". However, this goes back to my earlier point that even historically low rates can cause economic chaos if the debt is high enough.
I dunno about the politics, but personally I don't think there is a generic "correct" value. The rate describes the state of the world, and the "correct" value is whatever accurately describes the state of the world.
There is a separate question though - is that state of the world good or bad for people? Is it better or worse today than it was yesterday? What can we do - collectively - to push it in a direction that best serves our collective interests? These are valid questions to ask, and I think each takes us further in the direction of politics.
I personally don't think there's a correct concept of money. Money describes how happy I feel, and the correct money I should have is whatever describes my current mood.
So what can we collective do with money so I feel most happy. This may be the most important question of all to ask.
> A 0.25% rate hike is going to cause a recession? How, exactly, would that happen?
I didn’t see anyone claim a single 25 bps hike will cause a recession.
The 30 day FFR futures (/ZQ) curve is pricing in an 80% chance of two more hikes by the March 2027 meeting and a 70% chance of 3 or 4 hikes by Sept 2027’s meeting. So, 50 bps predicted in the next 6 months and 25-50 bps more within one year.
I don’t understand why central banks seem to use such a blunt object like interest rates for every inflation problem. It would make sense to rise if the cause of inflation was accelerated economic activity, not price rises due to supply restrictions. How does hurting mortgage holders even more help with not starting wars? All it can do is have a double dampening effect on the economy as people pull back their discretionary spending.
Using interest rates for this kind of inflation is guaranteed to cause a recession.
Central banks didn't use to do this, in the post-war period up until about 1980, they tried targeting the monetary aggregates like M2.
Unfortunately they discovered that the size of monetary aggregates was outside the control of central banks, these were demand determined by the public's desire for money balances. So all attempts to control the growth of monetary aggregates failed.
Having an inability to control anything else, the central banks turned to the one thing they could control -- overnight interest interest rates, and from that, bond yields more generally. That is the one tool in their toolbox.
Bob is correct here. The other tool people keep forgetting about is fiscal policy; government deficit spending is inflationary, and the US is currently running a very large deficit and was floating even more inflationary ideas like directly bribing voters to vote Republican in the midterms.
Really the problem is that everyone wants to make lots of money (economic growth) so they can spend more (increase consumption) but without anyone else raising their prices as a result. Unsquareable circle.
He's right about interest rates. But he's missing the point behind the debate: whose policy choices got us to where we are today where this is necessary? Republicans.
Not just Trump, Republicans as a whole. They are not fiscally conservative at all, and their culture wars and religious crusades are going to bankrupt the nation.
They'll sell you up a rope to corporate donors asking for deregulation. And we've seen exactly what happens when there is money to be made at the expense of other people's lives: spoiler alert, people like money more than they care about other people's health.
I don’t think we have a wide enough Overton window when it comes to economic discussions, the neoliberal revolution of the 1970s killed a lot of little levers of economic control in most post social democratic countries. Instead we were promised a new age of free trade and economic liberalism and one single, shiny lever to control the speed of the economy like the governor on a steam train.
Yet here we are 50 years later suffering booms and busts just like before. Nobody seems to want to acknowledge the failure of 50 years of industrialisation destruction that in hindsight was the inevitable outcome of open trade and the retreat of governments.
To answer the question, yes I think there are other options and trade barriers need to be part of that conversation.
It's not good for the economy when no one is willing to move for the next 20-30 years. And it's not good for the people who are unable to move to chase a better job as well.
Yes, I think 5% will eventually happen, but I don't think we'll get there before the mid-terms, the Fed moves slowly.
Basically you have an inflation shock and you want the reaction function to be higher, so if inflation is 1% too high, you want a 1.5% or 2% rate hike. If inflation is 1% too low, you want a 1.5% or 2% rate cut. The reaction function has to be greater than the deviation from target, but this gives you price stability, it doesn't require a recession, although it may cause a recession.
> A 0.25% rate hike is going to cause a recession?
Firstly a rate hike is as much a reaction to circumstances as it is a cause. It follows changes to the financial environment. As much as the current US Administration wanted a rate drop, circumstances dictated the opposite.
Secondly, it might not be isolated. These rates move by small increments, but there are usually several moves in succession, up to 8 times a year. Compare two or three small hikes to two or three small drops and the difference starts to add up. "A 0.25% rate hike" is small, but it indicates a change in direction. The article notes that it is "for the first time since 2023".
At this point its probably more like 12% temporarily because the more correct way to measure it is to take the 1980s inflation measure (from before all the medelling to make it artificially lower) and raise rates by 25 bips every quarter until that number is zero, then back it off slowly
What results? Overnight interbank loan rates, yes, immediately. The effect of those rates on the economy? It will take time to propagate. Heck, some important committees only meet like twice a year.
Another possibility is recession in next two years, but its brief enough that recovery starts before 2028 election - republicans take credit and voters believe it - JD Vance gets elected president.
I recall reading something from axios or similar, talking about how a CEO said a "nice light recession right now would be perfect for us" or something to that effect.
It’s optimistic to assume that a Democrat will be permitted to hold the office of the President. It came down to Mike Pence last time, and things have changed a lot since then.
I think this could be the thing that finally pops the AI circular financing bubble, leading to World Depression II. I'm not sure either of the existing 2 faces of the duopoly infesting politics will survive, and there's a non-zero chance this breaks civilization as supply chains collapse, and we enter a new dark ages.
This is very, very unlikely. The US would probably suffer more, given how much AI related expenditure there is. The EZ mostly wouldn't notice, and China is already basically in a depression that it's desperately trying to export its way out of (which seems unlikely without them doing something about all the underwater property debt).
So, their property sector essentially collapsed from 2019-21, vaporising much of the wealth possessed by many Chinese people (who were often buying expensive flats of the plans).
As a result of this many local government pushed money into car/electronics/whatever export industries. This lead to vicious competition, and many of the exporters are tapped out of Chinese markets (vicious competition) so they are attempting to export as much as possible (which is rational).
Looking at things more broadly, one could argue that lots of the reason for the vicious competition is precisely that many Chinese people are still in loads of debt from the property bust (much like Irish/Greek/Spanish people were after their property busts).
The central government is pushing the exporting companies hard, as they don't want to have to inject loads of money into the economy (apart from local support of exporters).
This makes sense from the government perspective as they want to be able to build everything that they need (so the US/EU can't screw them), but it's pretty bad for the chinese people, many of whom are not spending (there's been some deflation over the past 5 years).
So, in many ways the Chinese economy is not in a good state, even lots of the exporters/industrial companies are doing badly, hence why they are focusing on exports.
And because Xi is basically leader for life, the likelihood is that these policies won't change until he dies.
On an earlier HN economic story, someone provided data showing that this is entirely the responsibility of Republican administrations. Going back to Eisenhower, the Deficit has only increased under Republican Presidents and only decreased under Democratic ones (with one exception, Johnson was slightly positive in Deficit increase).
And which party controls congress? I'll give you a hint: It's the party that spent decades advocating for irresponsible tax cuts without cutting spending[0].
[0] Yes, I know that the Republicans said that they were going to cut spending to match the tax cuts, but that never ends up happening.
The (vast?) majority of the debt happened as the result of the Republican party both increasing spending and cutting taxes every time it lands someone in the White House and before midterms flip the House back to Democrats.
There's a fair argument to be made that the Democrats could/should have reversed these disastrous fiscal policies when they gained power, but it's important to be wary of Murc's Law while also acknowledging doing so would also burn a lot of political capital Democrats never seem to have much of.
The American electorate is a grade school child constantly evaluating which parent it likes the most. One tells you that you can eat as much candy as you like and play video games all night (neither of which hit you until the following day), while the other occasionally tells you to eat your vegetables, do your homework, and clean your room.
> The (vast?) majority of the debt happened as the result of the Republican party both increasing spending and cutting taxes every time it lands someone in the White House and before midterms flip the House back to Democrats.
Both parties have run an increasing deficit, with the only outlier being a small amount of time in the late 90s. The deficit is largely caused by social security outlays, medicare/medicaid outlays, and military spending, none of which are going to meaningfully change under either party
Under Bill Clinton, in 2000 we ran a (small) surplus, but even then, the shock of running a surplus hid the fact that the debt increased during his term overall. That was the last president in which there was even one year of the debt decreasing, all other presidents increased the debt. Here is data:
Maybe you mean something different, but not every recent president has "run an increasing deficit"
Reagan: +74B
Bush: +103B
Clinton: -382B
Bush: +1.5T
Obama: -747B
Trump: +2.1T
Biden: -1T
Where change in deficit is the final budget deficit - starting budget deficit
So, every Republican president runs an increasing deficit and every Democrat president runs a decreasing deficit.
Congress is the one that largely makes the fiscal policy choices. For example, during Clinton’s second term when the deficit was almost eliminated (some claim there was a surplus, but there wasn’t because of social security liabilities), you had a republican controlled congress who were pushing for cuts and fiscal tightening:
The republican program was in large part vetoed by Clinton though and the spending cuts that passed were largely offset by the tax cuts. From what I read the reduction in deficit is mostly due to the dot-com boom, helped with the "deficit reduction act" of 1993 that was pushed by Clinton and happened to hike taxes at the right time to tax the boom.
> The high inflation since Covid and $40 trillion in debt didn’t happen under one party
Between his first term and his second term to date (2+ more years to go), Trump is responsible for more that one quarter (29%) of US debt (USD 11.6T / 40T):
There was a bit of a mitigating circumstance of COVID (for Trump and Biden), which caused the debt to jump for many countries as well (and not just the US), but it's not like Trump et co are helping the math along with all the tax cuts and asking for a US$ >1T military budget.
But I would say a large reason why the US is in the fiscal position it is now in is because of Trump and a GOP Congress. (See also tax cuts under Bush 43 and Reagan; Bush 41 raised them a bit.)
I'm a lot more sympathetic to Joe Biden temporarily causing a spike in inflation while helping America recover from a horrible pandemic than Republicans habitually running the country off of debt.
Assuming you're talking about the Senate filibuster, then this can be changed or removed by simple majority vote. It's not in the Constitution, just a rule that the Senate adopted.
Like, personally I think that even sans filibuster, the Senate would move much slower than the House, because of election cycles.
The BBB, Iran war, and tariffs, something done solely by republicans, sometimes just the president, are the source of inflation, so you can attribute this situation mostly on Trump, and fully on republicans.
I may be wrong but I think they are referring to the Republican party's position on trans athletes in sports (literally, who is allowed on a girls sports team) being the only thing that matters to some voters.
Its a joke where all Republicans care about is winning the culture wars. Meaning there are boys on the girls sports teams who identify as girls. Its to get the base mad and get them to vote (supposedly).
> Prediction: this causes a recession in two years
"this" (raising the fed rate by .25%) is not what causes a recession in 2 years, it's what led to "this" (the ill-advised, badly-planned, Iran war) + tariffs + popping AI bubble that will do that.
One of the more baffling things in the most recent version of that cycle was Biden being solely blamed for inflation - in particular the finger pointing over checks exactly like the ones that went out under trump.
But not doing this would, in two years, cause (or at least allow) inflation that would cause harm, too. But Trump might get blamed in that case, because inflation would increase for the next two years, and so people would experience the pain during his term.
I basically agree. I don't care for DJT, but I can see how getting his "second term" underway after his first one could have been better. His four years away allowed him to stew and plan and respond.
At what point into a presidential term does it become their actual mess? And is there evidence of a time delay? Because by that argument, the mess we are in would been caused by Democrats.
Usually, months to years. The economy is a very big ship and slow to steer.
This particular crisis is quite abrupt, caused by a sharp jump in the price of oil. Most presidents don't really deserve either the credit or fault that they receive on the economy, but in this case there's a very clear and direct connection.
There's not a constant cutoff. It depends a lot on what the president and the administration do. Does the president push the button and start nuclear war? They are the primary driver for the new economy. Does the president continue the same policies that were working for the last decade and continue to work for the length of their presidency? They might never be the primary driver.
Arbitrarily decided by the person with political convictions blinding them.
Yes, it happens to both sides. People convince themselves their side always makes right decisions, the other side always wrong.
The truth is that the secret sauce is in the pendulum going back and forth. The excesses of one side are soon erased by the other. It is working, as it has for many years.
> This is how Republicans have a reputation for being economically savvy despite actual evidence to the contrary, because the general population doesn’t understand that economics runs on a time delay.
And it's how Democrats have a reputation for being the "wrongly victimized underdog / misunderstood savior" despite actual evidence to the contrary, because the general population doesn’t understand that economics runs on a time delay.
It bugs me that the Fed has no mechanism to really deal with supply-shock driven inflation. Prices are shooting up, but not strongly correlated to money supply at the moment. They’re shooting up because there are a dozen or more entirely capricious and totally self-inflicted supply-shocks due to bizzaro tariff “policy”, disastrous military adventurism, and general erosion of the USD the prime vessel for international trade.
The Fed tightening the money supply isn’t going to materially bring prices down, because the money supply isn’t driving the price increases.
> the Fed has no mechanism to really deal with supply-shock driven inflation.
Inflation is just a change in the ratio of money to stuff. You can reduce inflation by increasing the stuff or reducing the money, and cause it by doing the opposite. There's no requirement that the solution is applied to "the same factor", either works.
Sure, if you're wanting to assign blame or worried about externalities these things start to matter. But monetary policy is a perfectly fine tool for dealing with inflation, regardless of the cause.
Note: inflation causes prices to rise, but that doesn't mean that all changes in price are caused by inflation.
You’re describing only one flavor of inflation. What the Fed is supposed to care about is price stability, and lots of things influence prices, and not all of them are money supply and/or new money supply correspondent.
We saw this during COVID, the prices of things shot through the roof because of a combination of supply-chain shocks as well as the already well capitalized seizing the opportunity to spend their war chests locking down as much of the available supply as possible, which resulted in consolidation, which resulted in less available supply.
The random trade wars directly cause goods to cost more for absolutely no good reason whatsoever, it’s just a tax masquerading as a price increase, but the Fed deals in stabilizing prices, not taxes. So, it changing the money supply parameters does nothing.
The weakening of the international trade position of the USD writ large also causes prices to go up for no good reason, and nothing about that is going to be resolved by the Fed fiddling with the money supply parameters because it has to do with the stability and reliability of the U.S. as a trustworthy geopolitical operator, which the Fed can do next to nothing about.
The inflation being experienced as price instability/increases is being induced acutely by terrible fiscal & trade policy, but the Fed is acting to try to “fix it” using monetary policy, which won’t work at all. So, what’s the point? Just to look like it’s doing something?
Inflation isn't like ice cream that comes in assorted flavors. It's a simple ratio (hard to measure in practice, but still conceptually simple).
If one side of a ratio is fluctuating (for whatever reason) the ratio's value can be stabilized by making corresponding adjustments to the other side. Amount of goods drops 10%? Reduce the money supply by 10%, bam!, no inflation.
There may be all sorts of policy or political reasons for not doing this, but that's not the same thing as saying that it's necessarily ineffective because the inflation in question is the wrong "flavor".
The net effect is demand destruction. The US shouldn't be exporting diesel when it lacks sufficient refining capacity to make up for all of the capacity destroyed or unavailable from the US war of choice with Iran. And as the price of US domestic diesel goes to $6+, oil demand is going down both because there's insufficient refining capacity and there's a general slow down in the economy from the added inflation baked-in by higher oil prices and higher diesel prices.
Yeeep, inflation right now is not a monetary phenomenon. There's also general corporate greed and ever-increasing monopolization, helped out by Trump's lax regulatory hand
Interest rates rising aren't going to fix these sources of inflation.
> inflation right now is not a monetary phenomenon
It usually isn't. That doesn't change that raising rates should slow down credit creation a bit. That reduces demand in a supply-constrained economy. It also reduces risk appetites, which helps in a perilous world. (Finally, it gives rate-cutting headroom for when someone levered blows up.)
> It bugs me that the Fed has no mechanism to really deal with supply-shock driven inflation.
I mean, what would that actually look like? The Fed is insulated from democratic accountability, for very good reasons, but flipside of that is that their powers are intentionally limited. If they had the same immunity to public opinion but with the power to address supply shocks, that would quickly veer into tyranny.
It's a careful balancing act and there is no perfect solution. What's supposed to happen is that Congress acts on supply-shock driven inflation, but this current Congress would rather eat a bag of broken glass than actually govern, which the Fed can't really do anything about.
What it would look like, at the barest minimum, would be the Fed rightly and with receipts calling out the fact that they’re a monetary policy function, and that the current inflationary problems aren’t a monetary one, so if the U.S. would like something done about its inflation issues, then it needs to look someplace else besides the Fed to deal with it.
It doesn’t have to do anything to monetary policy when monetary policy isn’t the problem. It can do nothing.
It’s not the Fed’s job to try to fix terrible fiscal & trade policy, but that’s now what it’s basically trying to do. So, it’s become a political function by virtue of the political apparatus offloading the consequences of its idiocy onto the Fed to clean up after it with a set of tools that can’t even actually do the job.
Unfortunately, during that time is when they screwed around with the gold confiscations. So the best option would have been to illegally hoard gold until they struck the statute down?
I'm shocked that more people don't know about this. It seems insane that the "land of the free" (yeah I know, not really, but that's the pitch anyway) would have such an obviously command-economy policy through the heart of the cold war.
The US is going to debase itself endlessly through spend-print-spend-print. At some point they may load up enough debt that the economy suffers a gradual heat death, in the style of Japan, wherein too much of your national capital is going to debt maintenance, sitting in a low yield blackhole sucking the dynamism out of your system (instead of going to productive use, business expansion, R&D, et al).
There's absolutely nothing particularly interesting or special about the direction the US is going. It's very, very, very easy to see what's coming and has been for ~20 years (since Bush nearly doubled the size of the Federal Government and blew up our finances with simultaneous tax cuts + massive spending expansion, we've never turned back from the bleed).
Gold has gone up ~10x since the early Bush years precisely because of the USD debasement, that's the reduction in value in the dollar being represented in the ultimate store of value. All of it has been remarkably predictable. I've been chirping about it forever here and there's nothing special about my insight either, this stuff is plain as day national econ 101.
i know what you mean. 2008 and covid taught me to stop underestimating the abilities/nerve of our financial schemers and their political representatives to kick the can down the road. but i am too anxious about it to think straight. what to do?
> We were 10 years from paying off the national debt when Clinton left office. 10 years!
To be fair, if the US government had continued paying off the debt, the only way the (global) books would've balanced would've been for the US populace and businesses to take on waaaaayyyyyy more debt. Not sure if that would've been better.
(For a much better explanation of this, read Trade Wars are Class Wars).
The turning point is approaching: Interest rates will gradually overtake all other gov't expenditures. All politics will revolve around shoring up the parasitic drain on the rest of absolutely everything.
The country - particularly this industry, information technology - got addicted to cheap cash. Worse, people didn't want to pay any of it back in tax, so bond yields are going to go up on the debt that was issued to cover deficit spending.
Should be interesting to see how this impacts the AI hyper-scalers. They were already burning through cash like a furnace and were running out of people to borrow from, thus the IPO hopes.
To be honest though cash hasn't been cheap for a while, not really since 2021. We have been in relatively high interest rates for the entire AI boom. Going from 350-375 to 375-400 won't be a huge shock for hyperscalers. Interest rate are still lower than when many made their initial investments in 2023-2025
If you look at the kind of person who makes massive donations to politicians and initiatives that are about massive tax reforms (think Missouri's recent ballot question about introducing a state sales tax and eventually sunset its income tax) you'll notice that a lot of them are very wealthy people who have very, very few people that they have to answer to in their lives. The one exception, it would seem, is the tax man, and they absolutely hate that.
Market forces like inflation aren't a person exerting control over them. They're the results of humans acting within social structures. These people have control over social structures; they're the elite. They can counter that market force with some other market force. Taxes? That's cold, hard math. There's no way around it, no feeling of agency to be had. So while it might be harder to avoid, it's not the financial effect that they worry about, because they have enough money to weather that. It's the feeling of obligation and powerlessness in the face of others that they can't brook.
>Should be interesting to see how this impacts the AI hyper-scalers. They were already burning through cash like a furnace and were running out of people to borrow from
looks very similar to 2007-2008 - high rates plus an wide economy segment with very large debt. Now, the interesting question - did anybody "too large to fail" do (or got exposed in some other ways to) leveraged CDS on the hyperscalers bonds and private debt.
Edit: Whoever the hell flagged this lol....people were complaining the parent comment wasn't helpful so I took time to write a thoughtful response with citations. You can't win around here.
---
The counterintuitive part is that a lower Fed rate doesn't necessarily mean cheaper borrowing for the government. The Fed sets an overnight rate; someone lending for ten years cares about inflation and interest rates over those ten years. Keeping short-term rates low won't necessarily reassure that lender. [1]
It also helps to distinguish the government's debt from a giant credit card. Existing fixed-rate bonds keep their agreed interest payments. Higher borrowing costs feed into the budget as old debt matures and gets refinanced, and as new debt is issued. The pain accumulates rather than arriving all at once. [2]
Nor does a larger interest bill automatically require "printing money." Treasury borrowing and Fed money creation are separate decisions. [3]
The difficult question is how to contain inflation without causing more economic damage than necessary. A large debt load makes that tradeoff more expensive; it doesn't make either option painless.
I thought bumping up the prime rate slowed consumer spending. But the recent price hikes are because supply is hosed (oil, tariffs), not that demand has been bidding up prices. So how is this supposed to help?
It doesn't matter whether it is a supply shock or a demand shock, the correct response to inflation is to raise rates, which reduces economic activity and in this situation the reduced activity reduces demand for oil, which is what is needed in an environment in which we have less oil than normal.
Although it is the third world that is going to take the hit, the wealthy nations will bid up the price of oil to ensure they continue to get it, the poorer nations will be priced out. What is an annoyance in the west -- say needing to delay a major purchase or postpone a vacation or reduce expenses - translates to famine and deindustrialization in the global south.
Maybe it's not such a good idea to be waging war against major resource exporting nations, the US and Europe are now sanctioning about half of the global resource exporting nations, and the only benefit of this is higher prices in our domestic economies and China coming in to sign trade deals for discounted Russian and Iranian oil.
KSA also needs to lay off the Houthis and lift the embargo, it's long past time that they give up trying to control who runs Yemen.
I mean, if predicting market behaviour was that simple, I'd be very rich by now. This is another unique moment, the beginning of the end of an empire possibly. Some unusual things are going to happen and it'll be tricky to predict reliably.
Best thing we can hope for here is Trump sees an obvious way out of this: return the economy to a predicable machine, reduce spending, tax the ultra wealthy, and ditch tariffs. But I don't think much of that's likely to occur.
We're in unchartered territory in many ways. Good luck.
Oil is going up, possibly for a long time, which will have a big inflationary effect on everything. And it appears the USA government has lost the conflict it started and effectively given control over key oil delivery channels to Iran. Not to mention Saudia facing real issues from rebel groups / Yemen (simplification).
Government debt is high in several key economies, and the bond market is being saturated with AI-related bonds, as well as possibly people finally tired of lending the USA/France/UK money at low rates and demanding higher ones. And with higher interest rates and bonds rolling over it means more and more money going to pay for the debt, rather than core services.
Wild cards lurking in the bushes... AI, AGI, RSI.
And yonder you have a nuclear power floundering; its only source of hard currency is being rightfully degraded, and its leadership delusional.
And the one to watch IMO... Russian wheat export ability: wheat prices are up considerably, and combined with inflation from oil, this is the kind of stuff that creates waves of political change like the Arab Spring.
This is the right move. Inflationary pressures due to high oil prices and tariffs are not going away anytime soon. All the economic numbers point to a need for a rate hike. Not doing so has a much larger effect on the financial system than a 25 bps rate hike. Stagflation is a bigger risk to the economy.
Counterintuitively the rate hike can help lower things like mortgage rates by stabilizing the bond yields.
I don't think that mortgage rates are going to go down; I think they will go up. Just my opinion.
I also think oil is about to go up even more, maybe for multiple years, which is going to be inflationary on everything we do. But, could be really good for solar growth, electrification, and electric cars.
That wouldn’t be a great way to measure it. I’m only talking about the fed rates, how it impacts the bond market and therefore the mortgage rates. If someone decides to nuke the oil infrastructure of the world tomorrow, this rate hike doesn’t matter and your hopes and dreams of a low mortgage rate get nuked along with the oil infrastructure.
We'll continue through the depression we've started since 2008. (GDP growth should be closer to 3.5%-5%, but we haven't really escaped sub-2% since 2008) - our GDP has been depressed by at least 1-2% growth since that crisis, and I think a large part of it has been the inflationary cycle we started and never stopped.
The wars already put us into too much debt, Obama continued it for 8 years (granted, the deficit slowly went down, but it wasn't fixed). Trump and Biden did a huge disservice to the debt (but neither really cared much about it), and now I fear the path Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden have laid will not be easily fixed.
GDP growth is never going to be that high again. GDP growth is just per-capita GDP growth (1-1.5% per year) + population growth (used to be 1%, now is 0% or slightly negative). GDP growth of 1-1.5% will be normal going forward and could even go lower if population decline is at -.5% per year, for example.
I agree with you. We are still paying for 2008, and compounded the problem with Covid stimuli. I sure wish we would just rip the band aid off at this point, but it might already be too late. The global economy is jacked, China needs everyone to be consumers, and that well is running dry, globally.
Inflation is high, so interest rates need to go up to try to slow that, but the economy isn't doing amazing already, and higher interest rates won't help that.
Not to mention the US debt is _high_ as hell and bond yields mean that's more expensive.
And the country is run by a broken fool who has no interest or ability to fix any of that.
The country has been _run_ by fools for 26 years. Congress has had 26 years to do something about the fiscal situation, and we've had four presidents, and the fiscal responsible side of the electorate is never listened to.
Both sides are to blame - neither will fix the problem. Obama could've made that his goal - he was competent, had a lot of political good will, and many people were frustrated at the bailout policy Bush did, but instead it was inflationary printing (quantitative easing), Obamacare and Cash 4 Clunkers (which the used car market still hasn't recovered from).
I never voted for him - I didn't view him as honest, nor did he seem to indicate that he liked America, but was rather just a good talker - but I think he could've been a great president given a less radicalizing agenda.
He was probably the best situated president in terms of timing to fix the debt problem, but instead it was a good time for divisive politics. By the time Obama finished, it became clear neither party actually cared about the fiscally conservative Ron Paul supporting voting block.
> The country has been _run_ by fools for 26 years.
It's hard to accept the 'everyone is the same' in light of Trump's antics. Remind me again which presidents started wars of choice at the behest of Israel even when they were explicitly warned of the consequences?
I would love to hear what was "radical" or "divisive" about Obama's policy. A significant portion of the country disliking him because of his skin color doesn't make his policies "radical"
A universal health care mandate were both radical and divisive, and the popular nickname for the ACA today is "Obamacare".
I happen to think the policy was a good idea, and voting to keep it in play was the best vote of John McCain's career ... but it was definitely both radical and divisive.
Now, much of the "mandate" has been stripped away, health care remains a mess, and access is far from affordable, but you can't really blame that one on Obama.
> A universal health care mandate were both radical and divisive
It seems quite ironic, given the frequent complaints about the inability of Congress to either govern effectively or fix health insurance (for many and various definitions of "fix"), that the ACA was so divisive. At least it got passed! Yet given the opportunity twice (2017-2019, 2025-2027), a politically viable alternative hasn't been offered up by opponents of the ACA, let alone being able to fully repeal it.
Lol cool so health care is your definition of "radical" and "decisive". Hint: it's neither of these things and the only reason it was considered as such was because Obama was black (see tan suit). Seems like we need a few more years of woke cause you still can't see the obvious
Why specifically 26 years? I agree that Congress has been increasingly useless, leading to more and more rule by presidential decree in order to have a government that runs at all, but there wasn't a step function 26 years ago.
its because prior to that (2000 Bush era), congress and president had a plan to payoff debt and had a balanced budget plan in place to avoid over spending.
Long term bond yields are not directly tied to the Fed funds rate.
The problem is the debt purchased by the Fed during QE had extremely low yields (COVID era) the reserves held by banks created by the Fed during QE now cost more to service by the Fed.
> he caused a large part of it for unclear reasons
Technically it was Besset, but Trump gave him the reigns.
The purpose seems to be to radically debase the dollar and setup a crises that requires an entitlement cut (Social Security) for "the good of the economy" while also expanding military spending at the same time.
Covid? Half the money printed happened under his watch the first admin. Biden continued the other half. Now we have yet another war to make matters worse. What are you proposing be done to fix it?
Disagree, fairly strongly. In 2008, four trillion dollars evaporated. In order to keep the economy from completely crashing, the Fed created $4T using QE and such tricks. The result was 15 years of flat. No inflation for 15 years. If inflation shows up a decade and a half later, that probably wasn't the fault of how QE was done.
- I absolutely agree that inflation has nothing at all to do with QE, people who claimed that are just idiots who have a gold fetish.
- the problem I'm talking about is the fact that central banks didn't use QE as an opportunity to erase the public debt it bought. At the time it wouldn't have been an issue in any way. But now because inflation is back (due to oil) central banks cannot buy government bonds when they reach maturity and have to raise rates. Then the government bonds have become very expensive, and it has to be paid to the private sector on the market, so whenever a US govt security reaches maturity, the budget constraint increases. Sterilization of the debt would have alleviated this issue a lot at no cost.
Also, we should have taken the lessons of the era and raise the inflation target to 4%[1] at that time (it was definitely politically achievable then, now not so much).
I see. Well, what you propose might have the minor problem of being illegal for the Fed to do. I'm not perfectly sure (and I don't want to take the time to research this rabbit hole right now), but the Fed is deliberately different from the Treasury. It's not supposed to fund the government by creating money.
At a minimum, doing so would have created doubts about the future of the dollar. (Because countries that start having the central bank create money to fund the government often wind up in runaway inflation, with the currency becoming worthless.)
As to a 4% target: Given that they were stuck at 0% for the next decade (and tried, and failed, to get up to 2%), why would they move the target to 4%? They already couldn't do what they said, why double their failure?
> see. Well, what you propose might have the minor problem of being illegal for the Fed to do. I'm not perfectly sure (and I don't want to take the time to research this rabbit hole right now), but the Fed is deliberately different from the Treasury. It's not supposed to fund the government by creating money.
That's a good point, but it's not as clear cut. The Fed is supposed to achieve the double goal of full employment and price stability and it's not forbidden to make money out of thin air for that purpose, that's the reason why QE is a thing at all. The exact legality of canceling US debt on its balance sheet isn't clear, but:
1. Before 2014 the Obama admin had the power to pass a law making that explicitly legal.
2. There are examples of theoretically valid instruments to achieve the same goal which have been discussed in the period (see the “1 trillion dollar coin”).
> At a minimum, doing so would have created doubts about the future of the dollar. (Because countries that start having the central bank create money to fund the government often wind up in runaway inflation, with the currency becoming worthless.)
Context matters: doing it now would send a disastrous signal, but back in the early 2010s the challenge was to drive inflation up, which is why the Fed used QE in the first place. If anything such a move could have made QE more efficient to achieve its goal (in addition to helping today's public finances, which I argue would have had a stabilizing effect over the long run).
> As to a 4% target: Given that they were stuck at 0% for the next decade (and tried, and failed, to get up to 2%), why would they move the target to 4%? They already couldn't do what they said, why double their failure?
The IMF paper I linked above is pretty clear about the goal of such a measure, but the idea is to have more leeway in case of crisis, because if your inflation is around 2%, your Fed target rate is around 2% as well and you can only lower it by 2% as a stimulus measure, whereas with a 4% baseline inflation rate you have twice the leverage in terms of target rate.
> And the country is run by a broken fool who has no interest or ability to fix any of that.
Trump will be gone in three years, but you'll still have an electorate that wants more free stuff while also getting tax cuts. There is zero appetite for fiscal reform in the U.S. The geometric growth rate of U.S. debt has been consistent since 2010 and will remain so when AOC is President: https://usafacts.org/answers/how-much-debt-does-the-us-have/...
You really really just need to raise taxes. Just find a way to sell that to the public (focus on the rich or large corporations or whatever outgroup you want basically)
Our budget deficit is $2 trillion. To close it, you need to significantly raise taxes on the fattest part of the income curve, which is the top 25%. They have $10 trillion of income. https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-in.... An across the board 200 basis point increase would close the deficit. That would raise their taxes to 38% at the low end to 46% at the high end, which is perfectly fine.
The problem is that the top 25% isn’t an “out group” in either coalition. You have Facebook PMs who vote blue and guys who own a small plumbing company who vote red both making $1 million+ annually and neither wanting their own taxes to go up. Then there are the guys below them looking up. Over 10% of the country will be in the top 1% of earners at some point in their life. So the guys pulling in a few hundred K as a senior engineer or construction manager don’t want their taxes to go up either.
At peak career ages, the 75th percentile household income is almost $200k and the 90th percentile is almost $300k. That’s exactly the range you need to tax. Across all ages, households earning between $150k and $800k earn half of all income—$7 trillion.
The wealthy have been taxed appropriately in the past, we just need to do it again. There is precedent.
The Peak Year (1944): The 94% rate applied to taxable income over $200,000 (which included a 3% regular tax and a 91% surtax). That $200,000 would be incomes over $3.8 Million today.
The High-Tax Era: Top marginal rates remained above 90% for two decades, spanning from 1944 through 1963.
This is supposedly the era that made America "great".
Okay, but how much tax revenue was raised from those high marginal rates? The top rate is meaningless without knowing how much money that actually brings in for the government. That’s the key part of the analysis for purposes of this discussion.
Aside from a brief blip during WWII, federal tax receipts as a percentage of GDP have been stable at around 17% of GDP, going back to 1950: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S. Those high marginal rates never actually raised very much revenue. To close the deficit, we have to get that 17% number up to 23%.
To raise revenue, you need to lower the threshold at which high marginal rates kick in so that you actually capture the fat part of the tax base. About half of all income is earned by people making $100k-800k. That’s around where the heavy tax burden falls in every western european country.
No, U.S. benefits are at a typical level for an OECD country. The problem is the taxes. U.S. taxation is only 25% of GDP, versus 40% in western Europe. We could raise taxes $3 trillion annually and still be at the level of one of the more responsible European countries like the U.K.
Disagree. We have a spending problem, not a tax revenue problem. No matter how much the govt brings in, it will want to spend an increasing amount more.
There is also insane amount of debt from ai related investment. China's free model is crushing the ai margins while these companies need to pay their debt and obligations. The debt bomb clock is ticking.
Higher rates means financing/borrowing is more expensive. Mortgage rates will go up, possibly pushing home prices down. This is neutral for buyers because of higher rates, but bad for sellers. Loans (personal or business) will be harder to come by. Layoffs, or at least hiring freezes, are more likely. Companies will move into a defensive rather than an growth mode. Higher unemployment will lead to more desperation, and possibly consumer defaults on loans and mortgages.
Government interest payments, which are already high, will become higher after future bond sales. This will compound future budgetary problems and could eventually lead to cuts in entitlements. If so, expect crime and political instability (already a problem) to rise in the future. This will take a while, though.
Normally rates are increased to lower inflation by reducing the supply of money. Given the multiple concurrent problems with energy (Hormuz, Red Sea/Yanbu, Russia/Ukraine, possibly Libya as problems are starting there, China is buying aggressively) then higher rates may not be enough to stop inflation. This would create a situation where both borrowing is harder and inflation continues to rage. This is very bad and will lead to demand destruction (nobody’s buying anything because it’s too expensive and they can’t finance it anyway). This results in a severe recession at the minimum.
Edit: wow, I really set off a discussion with this. See replies below for clarification on mortgage rates, which is the least important part anyways. Also, I should note that a lot of the above is a worst case scenario, if energy isn’t solved soon and especially if bonds don’t respond to the hike, leading to further hikes.
“Higher rates means financing/borrowing is more expensive. Mortgage rates will go up,…”
This is highly inaccurate. The 10 year US treasury is a better metric for predicting mortgage rates. We saw this during the past interest rate cuts, interest for loans and mortgages still went up, remember? I do, because I was borrowing at the time. And why was that? Because the 10-year treasury continued going up, and that matters more than short term interest rates. The 10-year treasury is about expectations about the future, so we need to look at how the market responds before screaming mortgage rates will go up, they could actually go down.
I didn’t say it was the best metric, but they trend in the same direction over time.
The 10 year and fed rates are usually correlated. Occasionally rates spike or dip without moving the 10 year, but these events are brief. This could be a short spike, but only time will tell.
Your graph shows that home sales have been at a constant rate for the last 3 years. They are way down from 2020-2021, when covid plus low interest rates caused a home buying frenzy, but this is not new. We've been in this regime for the last 4ish years, 25 basis points is not going to change anything. In fact, interest rates are lower now than they were a year ago.
That's not to say that rising rates aren't a sign of bad things, the definitely are, it's just not going to make much of an impact with this magnitude of change.
Sales have remained low (at GFC levels) while inventory has continued to climb. In other words supply is up and demand is flat. Doesn’t look good to me, but I’m not a professional market analyst.
It all depends on how long buyers (in aggregate) are willing to hold out, or if they are simply unable to buy at these prices. And nobody really knows that.
Mortgage rates are not decided by the fed rate as much as they are by the bond yields. There’s a reason why the mortgage rates were above 7% yesterday even when the fed rate has been stable for a while.
This rate hike is aimed to stabilize the bond yields which in turn will lower the mortgage rates.
If interest rates go up, bonds get sold (for better yield bearing products), pushing the yields of those bonds higher. And it finds some equilibrium. The fact it isn't immediate has to do with short term vs long term bonds. When they mature and the pace of arbitrage.
I don't see how a rate hike is meant to lower mortgage rate. And just looking at the figures shows it's the opposite effect.
Logically, if borrowing money becomes more expensive, how could borrowing specifically for the purpose of buying houses become cheaper.
You have to look at the current context. Bond yields have been spiking, mostly because of the inflation expectations from oil prices and tariffs (mostly oil prices). Mortgages mostly track 10 year yields, which is why when fed dropped the rates back to back, the mortgage rates didn’t come down. The current hike (and the next one) is supposed to create a deflationary pressure, but also provide confidence to the market that the fed will step in to cool inflation if necessary. This in turn lowers the yield on 10 year treasuries and therefore mortgage rates.
The fed rate provides a floor for mortgage rates, but the 10 year yield and mortgage demand decide the ceiling. Currently the demand is pretty low, and therefore the yield mostly controls the mortgage rates.
what I'm saying is that Fed hikes interest rates → bonds sell off → yields rise → mortgage rates rise.
This is logical and empirically observed.
But you are right on the longer term effect. Zooming out: Fed hikes → inflation cools → inflation expectations fall → yields fall → mortgage rates fall.
But the latter is not guaranteed, and it takes time.
I'm unsure to understand how the ceiling and floor mechanisms work. But will dig into that. Thanks.
It seems like this would depend on the bond market’s perception of whether or not this hike is the start of a trend. It could be seen as a signal that political attempts to lower rates have been unsuccessful.
As a buyer you rather want to take out a loan in a high interest rate environment than a low interest rate environment, given that the monthly payment is the same.
1000 usd extra paid towards your mortgage actually makes a difference when the rate is 15% compared to when it is 1.5%
There's also "date the rate, marry the price". If you're a buyer and think that rates are going to come down within a couple of years, you can lock in the lower price of your home for property tax purposes and then refinance when rates are lower.
But a lot of people bought in 2024 expecting that to happen.
Only if you expect rates to come down in the future. If the monthly payment is the same, I guess you have a slightly bigger mortgage interest deduction for tax purposes, but you’re still paying the same amount each month.
If you expect rates to come down soon, you can plan to refinance in the future, but that’s a gamble. Rates may not go down, or the value of the house could go down before you refinance, which may make refinancing more expensive depending on how much you owe.
If you’re paying the same amount monthly, your cash flow is the same. Are we not comparing apples to apples here? I mean a traditional fixed mortgage.
I’m comparing a mortgage with a high rate and lower principal to one with a lower rate and high principal, where the minimum monthly payments are the same and the owner pays the minimum.
A high interest mortgage just means that you pay more total interest over the life of the mortgage. In any case traditional mortgages are front-loaded, so you pay more towards interest up front than you do principal.
This is true, but I was not assuming extra payments and I don’t know where you got that assumption from. Many people can’t afford to make extra payments given the already high cost of housing and the rising cost of everything else.
The question is what will rates do in the future. If rates go down you refinance, if they go up even more you hold your rates. Either way so you are fine long term, but it can be 10 years before it pays off.
Note that the US mostly does fixed rate for life of the loan. Many countries only have ARM (adjustable rates), and those exist in the US as well. If you have an ARM that changes things greatly.
He assumed that the payment is the same meaning the principal for the same house went down and so this is neutral. If your payment is the same it doesn't matter what is principal vs interest. In the best cases rates go down in the future and then you refinance and your payment goes way down.
House prices tend to be "sticky", so that assumption is probably wrong. People who own a house often cannot afford to sell for the current value since it won't pay off their loan and leave enough money left over for a replacement house so they avoid moving. Eventually things get bad enough that they "sell short", but that takes a credit hit so you don't want to do that until the loss is large (and in turn you gain more).
Stagflation is when the economy stagnates yet inflation is higher than ideal. Inflation and economic activity are typically correlated, and the conventional wisdom back in the day was that you couldn't have unemployment going up and things costing more, because it was expected that demand going down puts a downward pressure on prices. When people aren't hiring and buying but things cost more and more, life just kind of sucks. The last time this happened was in the 1970s in the aftermath of a few oil embargoes that made oil prices go through the roof and a disastrously expensive failed war in Vietnam, there was gas rationing, it sucked.
You may notice a few key similarities now with oil embargoes, reduced hiring, an extremely expensive war, and rapidly expanding government debt as a result of that war. If you want a qualitative feeling about people's moods in the 70s, you can watch such movies as:
Taxi Driver
The Deer Hunter
The Warriors
Americathon
Network
For those of us without a degree in economics the last few years have seemed a bit unhinged from reality so I will not claim any deep insight here. However, it is hard to imagine that an increase in cost of debt will not have some impact and probably in ways not anticipated by many of those with economics degrees.
Prediction: this causes a recession in two years, right after a Democrat wins the White House, who will be blamed for it. The economy will turn around after a few years, just in time for a Republican to win and claim they fixed it.
This is how Republicans have a reputation for being economically savvy despite actual evidence to the contrary, because the general population doesn’t understand that economics runs on a time delay.
A 0.25% rate hike is going to cause a recession? How, exactly, would that happen?
Honestly it seems your post is heavy on politics but I am not seeing an actual argument anywhere in there.
My canned response to people being upset at various policies or ratios, whether it is inflation, or bond yields, or market movements, is to ask them what they think the correct value should be. Stop complaining about the movement and instead ask them for their target. You think a 4% FedFunds is too high or too low? What do you think the correct value is and why? You think the stock market is too high or too low, what do you think the correct value of the index should be?
Most people, who were just moments ago vociferously complaining about a movement, when asked this question fall silent, because they have no idea what the target should be, and because they have no idea about the target, they really have no business complaining about movement. Instead, they use the movement as a springboard to air their ideological beefs. But if you are going to tie some thesis to a rate hike, you better be able to explain what you think the correct rate should be and why. I'm waiting.
Personally, I think a 4% rate is perfectly fine. 5% may even be warranted, and historically this has not been a high rate, if you assume, say, 2.5% inflation and 2% GDP growth, this is a pretty reasonable place to be.
I don't think numbers matter here.
Bond prices shooting up is a result of market losing trust in US, or it's ability to not default.
Dollar is famous backed by $700T military. But the world has seen how it failed to secure a strait.
The current US government has broken all kind of promises. I want to highlight two in particular - free trade and immigration.
World economy has benefited for decades on the promises of free trade. The tariffs have eroded the promise and trust.
The government is also openly supporting elements who are hostile to immigrants. Immigrants are the backbone of US economy, has been for over hundred years. Immigrating to the US requires years of preparation, long term planning, and giving up on other luxuries and opportunities. When the government starts breaking promises by changing rules and moving the goalposts overnight, it discourages participation.
The dollar is not "backed" by a military. China has a huge military and no one uses the Yuan for third party trade. Why not? Because China does not run trade deficits that allow third parties to acquire the Yuan in the first place, it does not have open capital markets that allow third parties to store their surpluses in Yuan, and it does not have the investor protections that give investors confidence that they can pull their savings out whenever they want.
You know a nation that does have those things other than the US? Switzerland, which is why a lot of people use swiss Francs, even though Switzerland does not have a huge military. People need to stop reading Graber and others who have no economic training and don't understand global balance of payment accounting. Having a large military does not translate into people wanting your currency, otherwise China, North Korea, and Russia would have well used international currencies, rather than being forced to use the currency of their rivals.
The petrodollar system resolved the 70s inflation crisis after Nixon sent the head of the CIA to Saudi Arabia. The US military backed revolutionaries during the arab spring because the dead dictators wanted to start a pan-african currency with which to trade oil. Iran, Venezuela and Russia were under sanctions and treated as enemies in very big part because they were selling oil for other currencies than the USD.
The US dollar is propped up by constant US dollar liquidity related to the fact that you need it to trade significant quantities of oil with the vast majority of producers. That situation was held up by the US' military might. Starting shit with Iran and being unable to finish it means there's no reason for oil producing countries to keep financing american debt on the cheap. What are they going to do? Restrict their own access to crude?
There's more to it, but the USD for gas scheme is a big structural chunk of the financial house of card. You break that and the rest won't hold up very long. And it's not like other structural parts of what makes the USD the global reserve currency aren't getting eroded either. Fed independence stands there glaringly obvious.
Your points are valid. But there's a reason why dollar is "petrodollar" - when we say it's backed by US military it's really the axis of US-Israel-Saudi Arabia which control military as well as resources. People use US dollar not necessarily because they want, but because they have to. I also do not know who Graber is but I'll look it up.
A 0.25% rate hike might be the straw that breaks the camel's back. There are a lot of stressors on the economy right now. I don't think it's going to take too many more to tip it. And once it tips, it'll pop bubbles that'll magnify the recession significantly.
> is to ask them what they think the correct value should be
This is Hacker News, we should understand what a PID controller is.
The economy is the "plant". The variable of interest, inflation, is the output of the plant. The government interest rate is the input. As inflation varies around the target FOMC rate, the Fed adjusts the rate. If inflation is over 2%, we should expect rate hikes, regardless of what the current rate is.
This is a fairly simple and very effective system that has worked in most Western countries and the Eurozone since the 90s.
However, note that the "recession" claim is also partly correct: the reason rate hikes work to reduce inflation is that they move the economy growth rate down, in the direction of (but not necessarily into!) recession.
Bring this energetic criticism onto Warsh, whose speech was nauseatingly political in comparison to his predecessor. Paraphrasing ~ “I’m not data-driven, I’m trend-driven”. Frankly speaking, he sounded like a dumbass who failed his way upwards into a position of meaningful power, much like the rest of the government at the moment. Warsh also refused to give a target or a forecast.
The OP that you’re criticizing is simply making a prediction, and he doesn’t work at the fed.
It was hard to watch and ended abruptly. Perhaps the only 2 reporters that kind of tried to challenge the contradictions in his approach were Nick Timiraos and Michael McKee.
I think that one obvious question that no one asked him, is why not cancel the post FOMC press conference if he opposes forward guidance and won't even explain what data guides his vote when asked about it.
>My canned response to people being upset at various policies or ratios, whether it is inflation, or bond yields, or market movements, is to ask them what they think the correct value should be.
Maybe find a better canned response? US debt has never been higher, and because of this even rates that are below historic highs can cause economic chaos.
Did you ever think that the reason why US debt is so high is because rates are so low and borrowing is so cheap? Higher rates are needed, and are really the only mechanism to reduce borrowing.
We are seeing asset bubbles across the board in this economy, in housing, in equities, auto loans, etc. It turns out that if you make something cheap, people buy more of it, and that includes the government.
I agree with you, and this is much better than your previous "canned response". However, this goes back to my earlier point that even historically low rates can cause economic chaos if the debt is high enough.
I dunno about the politics, but personally I don't think there is a generic "correct" value. The rate describes the state of the world, and the "correct" value is whatever accurately describes the state of the world.
There is a separate question though - is that state of the world good or bad for people? Is it better or worse today than it was yesterday? What can we do - collectively - to push it in a direction that best serves our collective interests? These are valid questions to ask, and I think each takes us further in the direction of politics.
I personally don't think there's a correct concept of money. Money describes how happy I feel, and the correct money I should have is whatever describes my current mood.
So what can we collective do with money so I feel most happy. This may be the most important question of all to ask.
^ This is unironically how the median voter responds to all this policy.
> A 0.25% rate hike is going to cause a recession? How, exactly, would that happen?
I didn’t see anyone claim a single 25 bps hike will cause a recession.
The 30 day FFR futures (/ZQ) curve is pricing in an 80% chance of two more hikes by the March 2027 meeting and a 70% chance of 3 or 4 hikes by Sept 2027’s meeting. So, 50 bps predicted in the next 6 months and 25-50 bps more within one year.
Source is the CME Fedwatch tool: https://www.cmegroup.com/markets/interest-rates/cme-fedwatch...
I think we’ll need to go to 5%+ within the next two years if fuel costs remain elevated.
I don’t understand why central banks seem to use such a blunt object like interest rates for every inflation problem. It would make sense to rise if the cause of inflation was accelerated economic activity, not price rises due to supply restrictions. How does hurting mortgage holders even more help with not starting wars? All it can do is have a double dampening effect on the economy as people pull back their discretionary spending.
Using interest rates for this kind of inflation is guaranteed to cause a recession.
Central banks didn't use to do this, in the post-war period up until about 1980, they tried targeting the monetary aggregates like M2.
Unfortunately they discovered that the size of monetary aggregates was outside the control of central banks, these were demand determined by the public's desire for money balances. So all attempts to control the growth of monetary aggregates failed.
Having an inability to control anything else, the central banks turned to the one thing they could control -- overnight interest interest rates, and from that, bond yields more generally. That is the one tool in their toolbox.
Do you think other tools exist?
Bob is correct here. The other tool people keep forgetting about is fiscal policy; government deficit spending is inflationary, and the US is currently running a very large deficit and was floating even more inflationary ideas like directly bribing voters to vote Republican in the midterms.
Really the problem is that everyone wants to make lots of money (economic growth) so they can spend more (increase consumption) but without anyone else raising their prices as a result. Unsquareable circle.
He's right about interest rates. But he's missing the point behind the debate: whose policy choices got us to where we are today where this is necessary? Republicans.
Not just Trump, Republicans as a whole. They are not fiscally conservative at all, and their culture wars and religious crusades are going to bankrupt the nation.
They'll sell you up a rope to corporate donors asking for deregulation. And we've seen exactly what happens when there is money to be made at the expense of other people's lives: spoiler alert, people like money more than they care about other people's health.
I don’t think we have a wide enough Overton window when it comes to economic discussions, the neoliberal revolution of the 1970s killed a lot of little levers of economic control in most post social democratic countries. Instead we were promised a new age of free trade and economic liberalism and one single, shiny lever to control the speed of the economy like the governor on a steam train.
Yet here we are 50 years later suffering booms and busts just like before. Nobody seems to want to acknowledge the failure of 50 years of industrialisation destruction that in hindsight was the inevitable outcome of open trade and the retreat of governments.
To answer the question, yes I think there are other options and trade barriers need to be part of that conversation.
It’s not entirely true. There’s plenty more levers on economy and inflation. This is the main one that central banks have.
For the elephant in the room, the current inflation woes are caused by oil price increase, which is a direct outcome of deliberate US policy.
> hurting mortgage holders
How does raising rates hurt mortgage holders? They locked in their interest rate when they got the mortgage?
It's not good for the economy when no one is willing to move for the next 20-30 years. And it's not good for the people who are unable to move to chase a better job as well.
Not all mortgages are fixed rate.
95% of mortgages are fixed rate in the US. And even that number is too low, most of the ARMs are taken out by businesses, not households.
Yes, I think 5% will eventually happen, but I don't think we'll get there before the mid-terms, the Fed moves slowly.
Basically you have an inflation shock and you want the reaction function to be higher, so if inflation is 1% too high, you want a 1.5% or 2% rate hike. If inflation is 1% too low, you want a 1.5% or 2% rate cut. The reaction function has to be greater than the deviation from target, but this gives you price stability, it doesn't require a recession, although it may cause a recession.
> A 0.25% rate hike is going to cause a recession?
Firstly a rate hike is as much a reaction to circumstances as it is a cause. It follows changes to the financial environment. As much as the current US Administration wanted a rate drop, circumstances dictated the opposite.
Secondly, it might not be isolated. These rates move by small increments, but there are usually several moves in succession, up to 8 times a year. Compare two or three small hikes to two or three small drops and the difference starts to add up. "A 0.25% rate hike" is small, but it indicates a change in direction. The article notes that it is "for the first time since 2023".
At this point its probably more like 12% temporarily because the more correct way to measure it is to take the 1980s inflation measure (from before all the medelling to make it artificially lower) and raise rates by 25 bips every quarter until that number is zero, then back it off slowly
It's interesting that this article doesn't have the rate...
(It moved from 3.5% - 3.75% to 3.75% - 4%, the US uses a range, not a fixed number.)
But this one is something that gets results almost immediately. We will see what it does in 2 or 3 months, not years.
The current official US inflation rate is 3.4%. So the real interest rate is under 1%.
The most relevant comparison is the short term treasure rates, that is currently at 4% for 3 months.
What means that the US is still paying banks to take loans. They just fixed it so it pays very, very little.
What results? Overnight interbank loan rates, yes, immediately. The effect of those rates on the economy? It will take time to propagate. Heck, some important committees only meet like twice a year.
> What results?
Inflation numbers, companies firing, and the magnitude of fictional numbers on financial markets.
Lots and lots of things are slower to react, but those 3 are quite big and hard to ignore.
Layoffs are abnormally low right now, well below the rate a decade before 2020.
Here is data: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/JTSLDR
Inflation is a bit higher, but not shockingly so, here is the data:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIAUCSL#
In terms of "fictional numbers on wall street", I don't see any real data there, but if you have access to something then please share.
Another possibility is recession in next two years, but its brief enough that recovery starts before 2028 election - republicans take credit and voters believe it - JD Vance gets elected president.
I recall reading something from axios or similar, talking about how a CEO said a "nice light recession right now would be perfect for us" or something to that effect.
Wouldn’t surprise me if it was a lot sooner given skyrocketing fuel costs, high bond yields, and unsustainable AI spending.
We will enter a recession in less than two years, the R timing on this one isn’t going to work out
I doubt it will take 2 years as other ingredients are already at play.
No, this will probably fall apart before Trump is out of office and a Democrat will be expected to clean up his mess again.
It’s optimistic to assume that a Democrat will be permitted to hold the office of the President. It came down to Mike Pence last time, and things have changed a lot since then.
I think this could be the thing that finally pops the AI circular financing bubble, leading to World Depression II. I'm not sure either of the existing 2 faces of the duopoly infesting politics will survive, and there's a non-zero chance this breaks civilization as supply chains collapse, and we enter a new dark ages.
> leading to World Depression II
This is very, very unlikely. The US would probably suffer more, given how much AI related expenditure there is. The EZ mostly wouldn't notice, and China is already basically in a depression that it's desperately trying to export its way out of (which seems unlikely without them doing something about all the underwater property debt).
> China is already basically in a depression You gotta expand on that, chief.
So, their property sector essentially collapsed from 2019-21, vaporising much of the wealth possessed by many Chinese people (who were often buying expensive flats of the plans).
As a result of this many local government pushed money into car/electronics/whatever export industries. This lead to vicious competition, and many of the exporters are tapped out of Chinese markets (vicious competition) so they are attempting to export as much as possible (which is rational).
Looking at things more broadly, one could argue that lots of the reason for the vicious competition is precisely that many Chinese people are still in loads of debt from the property bust (much like Irish/Greek/Spanish people were after their property busts).
The central government is pushing the exporting companies hard, as they don't want to have to inject loads of money into the economy (apart from local support of exporters).
This makes sense from the government perspective as they want to be able to build everything that they need (so the US/EU can't screw them), but it's pretty bad for the chinese people, many of whom are not spending (there's been some deflation over the past 5 years).
So, in many ways the Chinese economy is not in a good state, even lots of the exporters/industrial companies are doing badly, hence why they are focusing on exports.
And because Xi is basically leader for life, the likelihood is that these policies won't change until he dies.
Both parties are responsible for the inflation and debt. Fiscal policy is largely driven by congress, not the president
False.
On an earlier HN economic story, someone provided data showing that this is entirely the responsibility of Republican administrations. Going back to Eisenhower, the Deficit has only increased under Republican Presidents and only decreased under Democratic ones (with one exception, Johnson was slightly positive in Deficit increase).
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49714491
And which party controls congress? I'll give you a hint: It's the party that spent decades advocating for irresponsible tax cuts without cutting spending[0].
[0] Yes, I know that the Republicans said that they were going to cut spending to match the tax cuts, but that never ends up happening.
The high inflation since Covid and $40 trillion in debt didn’t happen under one party
The (vast?) majority of the debt happened as the result of the Republican party both increasing spending and cutting taxes every time it lands someone in the White House and before midterms flip the House back to Democrats.
There's a fair argument to be made that the Democrats could/should have reversed these disastrous fiscal policies when they gained power, but it's important to be wary of Murc's Law while also acknowledging doing so would also burn a lot of political capital Democrats never seem to have much of.
The American electorate is a grade school child constantly evaluating which parent it likes the most. One tells you that you can eat as much candy as you like and play video games all night (neither of which hit you until the following day), while the other occasionally tells you to eat your vegetables, do your homework, and clean your room.
> The (vast?) majority of the debt happened as the result of the Republican party both increasing spending and cutting taxes every time it lands someone in the White House and before midterms flip the House back to Democrats.
Both parties have run an increasing deficit, with the only outlier being a small amount of time in the late 90s. The deficit is largely caused by social security outlays, medicare/medicaid outlays, and military spending, none of which are going to meaningfully change under either party
Under Bill Clinton, in 2000 we ran a (small) surplus, but even then, the shock of running a surplus hid the fact that the debt increased during his term overall. That was the last president in which there was even one year of the debt decreasing, all other presidents increased the debt. Here is data:
https://www.macrotrends.net/2496/national-debt-growth-by-yea...
Maybe you mean something different, but not every recent president has "run an increasing deficit" Reagan: +74B Bush: +103B Clinton: -382B Bush: +1.5T Obama: -747B Trump: +2.1T Biden: -1T
Where change in deficit is the final budget deficit - starting budget deficit
So, every Republican president runs an increasing deficit and every Democrat president runs a decreasing deficit.
Congress is the one that largely makes the fiscal policy choices. For example, during Clinton’s second term when the deficit was almost eliminated (some claim there was a surplus, but there wasn’t because of social security liabilities), you had a republican controlled congress who were pushing for cuts and fiscal tightening:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America
The republican program was in large part vetoed by Clinton though and the spending cuts that passed were largely offset by the tax cuts. From what I read the reduction in deficit is mostly due to the dot-com boom, helped with the "deficit reduction act" of 1993 that was pushed by Clinton and happened to hike taxes at the right time to tax the boom.
> The high inflation since Covid and $40 trillion in debt didn’t happen under one party
Between his first term and his second term to date (2+ more years to go), Trump is responsible for more that one quarter (29%) of US debt (USD 11.6T / 40T):
* https://time.com/article/2026/08/21/national-debt-trump-bide...
There was a bit of a mitigating circumstance of COVID (for Trump and Biden), which caused the debt to jump for many countries as well (and not just the US), but it's not like Trump et co are helping the math along with all the tax cuts and asking for a US$ >1T military budget.
But I would say a large reason why the US is in the fiscal position it is now in is because of Trump and a GOP Congress. (See also tax cuts under Bush 43 and Reagan; Bush 41 raised them a bit.)
But just one wins elections promising they will reducing it
Neither party has realistic plans to reduce the debt. It’s been that way for decades. Kicking the can down the road gets more votes
It was democrat who ended with surplus. This is not both sides issue. This very much "conservatives make things worst and hide behind both sides".
What's the other promising to do with it?
I'm a lot more sympathetic to Joe Biden temporarily causing a spike in inflation while helping America recover from a horrible pandemic than Republicans habitually running the country off of debt.
Joe Biden didn’t cause a spike in inflation, congress did. And the policies that caused it wasn’t under Joe Biden’s term
Also, inflation wasn’t temporary
Partly it doesn't happen because you can't really get much done even if you have a majority. You really end up needing a super majority.
The one thing both parties agree on though is running up a massive deficit
> You really end up needing a super majority.
Assuming you're talking about the Senate filibuster, then this can be changed or removed by simple majority vote. It's not in the Constitution, just a rule that the Senate adopted.
Like, personally I think that even sans filibuster, the Senate would move much slower than the House, because of election cycles.
I wonder which party's presidents have started all the trillion dollar wars in the past 30 years.....
This president single-handedly raised tariffs on goods from all over the world.
High inflation and large debt preceded the tariffs. That said, the tariffs didn’t help either. That’s why I said largely
Ultimately the president is enabled or constrained by laws enacted by congress
Yes. It is a tax. He raised a tax.
You might argue it is inflationary.
By that logic, interest rate hikes should be inflationary.
It is highly unusual to argue that taxation is inflationary since the whole point of inflation is to reduce demand.
You might argue it is illegal.
The BBB, Iran war, and tariffs, something done solely by republicans, sometimes just the president, are the source of inflation, so you can attribute this situation mostly on Trump, and fully on republicans.
Higher inflation rates started before any of those, but those things didn’t help
(deleted, political, no point)
> The important thing is really who's on the girl's soccer team
I've not heard this expression before; can someone explain it to me?
I may be wrong but I think they are referring to the Republican party's position on trans athletes in sports (literally, who is allowed on a girls sports team) being the only thing that matters to some voters.
Its a joke where all Republicans care about is winning the culture wars. Meaning there are boys on the girls sports teams who identify as girls. Its to get the base mad and get them to vote (supposedly).
I think they're referring to the obsession that some people have to trans issues.
This exact scenario has happened 4 times in my living memory already.
> Prediction: this causes a recession in two years
"this" (raising the fed rate by .25%) is not what causes a recession in 2 years, it's what led to "this" (the ill-advised, badly-planned, Iran war) + tariffs + popping AI bubble that will do that.
I would upvote this 100x if I could. There are decades of evidence of this same thing happening but people be people'ing every 2-4 years :)
One of the more baffling things in the most recent version of that cycle was Biden being solely blamed for inflation - in particular the finger pointing over checks exactly like the ones that went out under trump.
But not doing this would, in two years, cause (or at least allow) inflation that would cause harm, too. But Trump might get blamed in that case, because inflation would increase for the next two years, and so people would experience the pain during his term.
But this being supply shock induced inflation means that raising rates will likely have little effect on lowering inflation.
"Global depression imminent, here's what it means for this poor American political party"
So, you're aligned with President Trump who wants to cut rates, then?
I read the comment as: Trump’s policies are all forcing the US into stagflation so hard the fed has to do this, knowing it’ll cause a recession.
Fed actions typically take a few years to be felt, regardless of administration.
Easy fix, have the democrats lose the next election and you break the spell. It's all military industrial complex anyway.
I wish they'd lost in 2020, that's for sure.
Would have thinned the herd nicely by botching COVID and saved a ton on welfare.
Hello similarly named account.
I basically agree. I don't care for DJT, but I can see how getting his "second term" underway after his first one could have been better. His four years away allowed him to stew and plan and respond.
Yes. Even Trump has talked about this.
you stopped mid-sentence mate - “… to stew and plan on how to pillage as much as possible from Americans before he rides off into the sunset”
Exactly like “biden’s” inflation from the zero interest rate policy.
At what point into a presidential term does it become their actual mess? And is there evidence of a time delay? Because by that argument, the mess we are in would been caused by Democrats.
Usually, months to years. The economy is a very big ship and slow to steer.
This particular crisis is quite abrupt, caused by a sharp jump in the price of oil. Most presidents don't really deserve either the credit or fault that they receive on the economy, but in this case there's a very clear and direct connection.
There's not a constant cutoff. It depends a lot on what the president and the administration do. Does the president push the button and start nuclear war? They are the primary driver for the new economy. Does the president continue the same policies that were working for the last decade and continue to work for the length of their presidency? They might never be the primary driver.
All good is due to MyParty, all bad is due to OtherParty.
Arbitrarily decided by the person with political convictions blinding them.
Yes, it happens to both sides. People convince themselves their side always makes right decisions, the other side always wrong.
The truth is that the secret sauce is in the pendulum going back and forth. The excesses of one side are soon erased by the other. It is working, as it has for many years.
Depending on who you ask, the mess we are in is caused by Democrats.
> This is how Republicans have a reputation for being economically savvy despite actual evidence to the contrary, because the general population doesn’t understand that economics runs on a time delay.
And it's how Democrats have a reputation for being the "wrongly victimized underdog / misunderstood savior" despite actual evidence to the contrary, because the general population doesn’t understand that economics runs on a time delay.
It bugs me that the Fed has no mechanism to really deal with supply-shock driven inflation. Prices are shooting up, but not strongly correlated to money supply at the moment. They’re shooting up because there are a dozen or more entirely capricious and totally self-inflicted supply-shocks due to bizzaro tariff “policy”, disastrous military adventurism, and general erosion of the USD the prime vessel for international trade.
The Fed tightening the money supply isn’t going to materially bring prices down, because the money supply isn’t driving the price increases.
> the Fed has no mechanism to really deal with supply-shock driven inflation.
Inflation is just a change in the ratio of money to stuff. You can reduce inflation by increasing the stuff or reducing the money, and cause it by doing the opposite. There's no requirement that the solution is applied to "the same factor", either works.
Sure, if you're wanting to assign blame or worried about externalities these things start to matter. But monetary policy is a perfectly fine tool for dealing with inflation, regardless of the cause.
Note: inflation causes prices to rise, but that doesn't mean that all changes in price are caused by inflation.
You’re describing only one flavor of inflation. What the Fed is supposed to care about is price stability, and lots of things influence prices, and not all of them are money supply and/or new money supply correspondent.
We saw this during COVID, the prices of things shot through the roof because of a combination of supply-chain shocks as well as the already well capitalized seizing the opportunity to spend their war chests locking down as much of the available supply as possible, which resulted in consolidation, which resulted in less available supply.
The random trade wars directly cause goods to cost more for absolutely no good reason whatsoever, it’s just a tax masquerading as a price increase, but the Fed deals in stabilizing prices, not taxes. So, it changing the money supply parameters does nothing.
The weakening of the international trade position of the USD writ large also causes prices to go up for no good reason, and nothing about that is going to be resolved by the Fed fiddling with the money supply parameters because it has to do with the stability and reliability of the U.S. as a trustworthy geopolitical operator, which the Fed can do next to nothing about.
The inflation being experienced as price instability/increases is being induced acutely by terrible fiscal & trade policy, but the Fed is acting to try to “fix it” using monetary policy, which won’t work at all. So, what’s the point? Just to look like it’s doing something?
Inflation isn't like ice cream that comes in assorted flavors. It's a simple ratio (hard to measure in practice, but still conceptually simple).
If one side of a ratio is fluctuating (for whatever reason) the ratio's value can be stabilized by making corresponding adjustments to the other side. Amount of goods drops 10%? Reduce the money supply by 10%, bam!, no inflation.
There may be all sorts of policy or political reasons for not doing this, but that's not the same thing as saying that it's necessarily ineffective because the inflation in question is the wrong "flavor".
I thought about this as well. Maybe you have to slow down the entire economy to compensate for the missing supply.
Isn't the goal then demand destruction?
The net effect is demand destruction. The US shouldn't be exporting diesel when it lacks sufficient refining capacity to make up for all of the capacity destroyed or unavailable from the US war of choice with Iran. And as the price of US domestic diesel goes to $6+, oil demand is going down both because there's insufficient refining capacity and there's a general slow down in the economy from the added inflation baked-in by higher oil prices and higher diesel prices.
Additionally, immense government spending is offsetting anything the Fed can do, whereas in now-ancient times they tended to cooperate better.
Yeeep, inflation right now is not a monetary phenomenon. There's also general corporate greed and ever-increasing monopolization, helped out by Trump's lax regulatory hand
Interest rates rising aren't going to fix these sources of inflation.
> inflation right now is not a monetary phenomenon
It usually isn't. That doesn't change that raising rates should slow down credit creation a bit. That reduces demand in a supply-constrained economy. It also reduces risk appetites, which helps in a perilous world. (Finally, it gives rate-cutting headroom for when someone levered blows up.)
> It bugs me that the Fed has no mechanism to really deal with supply-shock driven inflation.
I mean, what would that actually look like? The Fed is insulated from democratic accountability, for very good reasons, but flipside of that is that their powers are intentionally limited. If they had the same immunity to public opinion but with the power to address supply shocks, that would quickly veer into tyranny.
It's a careful balancing act and there is no perfect solution. What's supposed to happen is that Congress acts on supply-shock driven inflation, but this current Congress would rather eat a bag of broken glass than actually govern, which the Fed can't really do anything about.
What it would look like, at the barest minimum, would be the Fed rightly and with receipts calling out the fact that they’re a monetary policy function, and that the current inflationary problems aren’t a monetary one, so if the U.S. would like something done about its inflation issues, then it needs to look someplace else besides the Fed to deal with it.
It doesn’t have to do anything to monetary policy when monetary policy isn’t the problem. It can do nothing.
It’s not the Fed’s job to try to fix terrible fiscal & trade policy, but that’s now what it’s basically trying to do. So, it’s become a political function by virtue of the political apparatus offloading the consequences of its idiocy onto the Fed to clean up after it with a set of tools that can’t even actually do the job.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagflation
I too have very strong opinions about central bank policies.
I wonder if Canada (BoC) will follow this. I hope not!
Inflation in Canada is currently right at their 2% target rate so they are unlikely to raise ... this time.
They will probably wait it out to December and make a call then, but a small bump is looking more and more likely.
They are too concerned with their housing market to raise rates.
Unanimous is a pleasant surprise
It is. But the data is talking rather loudly at the moment.
So, during the Great Depression who ended up doing well? What can be applied to today?
The consistent best thing you can do for yourself and family is sleep well and exercise to increase your aerobic efficiency.
yes, i will become the consummate amazon prime one hour delivery guy
Unfortunately, during that time is when they screwed around with the gold confiscations. So the best option would have been to illegally hoard gold until they struck the statute down?
Oof. Private gold ownership was illegal until 1975. So, you have to hide it for 40+ years? That investment strategy has some significant downsides...
I'm shocked that more people don't know about this. It seems insane that the "land of the free" (yeah I know, not really, but that's the pitch anyway) would have such an obviously command-economy policy through the heart of the cold war.
Whoever had money on hand to buy assets at bargain basement prices for people who didn't. Also - rum runners and smugglers.
Own stuff, not paper.
That's for hyperinflation. In a crash, you actually do want money (if you can find a job).
There isn't going to be a great depression.
The US is going to debase itself endlessly through spend-print-spend-print. At some point they may load up enough debt that the economy suffers a gradual heat death, in the style of Japan, wherein too much of your national capital is going to debt maintenance, sitting in a low yield blackhole sucking the dynamism out of your system (instead of going to productive use, business expansion, R&D, et al).
There's absolutely nothing particularly interesting or special about the direction the US is going. It's very, very, very easy to see what's coming and has been for ~20 years (since Bush nearly doubled the size of the Federal Government and blew up our finances with simultaneous tax cuts + massive spending expansion, we've never turned back from the bleed).
Gold has gone up ~10x since the early Bush years precisely because of the USD debasement, that's the reduction in value in the dollar being represented in the ultimate store of value. All of it has been remarkably predictable. I've been chirping about it forever here and there's nothing special about my insight either, this stuff is plain as day national econ 101.
i know what you mean. 2008 and covid taught me to stop underestimating the abilities/nerve of our financial schemers and their political representatives to kick the can down the road. but i am too anxious about it to think straight. what to do?
> since Bush nearly doubled the size of the Federal Government and blew up our finances with simultaneous tax cuts + massive spending expansion
We were 10 years from paying off the national debt when Clinton left office. 10 years!
> We were 10 years from paying off the national debt when Clinton left office. 10 years!
To be fair, if the US government had continued paying off the debt, the only way the (global) books would've balanced would've been for the US populace and businesses to take on waaaaayyyyyy more debt. Not sure if that would've been better.
(For a much better explanation of this, read Trade Wars are Class Wars).
What would job numbers look like if the federal government wasn't doubled?
I say this as someone who thinks Bush was an absolute idiot and would love to see the government shrunk.
TSA is basically a jobs program, what happens if we get rid of it?
The turning point is approaching: Interest rates will gradually overtake all other gov't expenditures. All politics will revolve around shoring up the parasitic drain on the rest of absolutely everything.
Should have been this high years ago.
The country - particularly this industry, information technology - got addicted to cheap cash. Worse, people didn't want to pay any of it back in tax, so bond yields are going to go up on the debt that was issued to cover deficit spending.
Should be interesting to see how this impacts the AI hyper-scalers. They were already burning through cash like a furnace and were running out of people to borrow from, thus the IPO hopes.
To be honest though cash hasn't been cheap for a while, not really since 2021. We have been in relatively high interest rates for the entire AI boom. Going from 350-375 to 375-400 won't be a huge shock for hyperscalers. Interest rate are still lower than when many made their initial investments in 2023-2025
Depends on your time frame for "relative to"; rates have been high compared to ZIRP-era, but still moderate to low when compared to historical norms.
I'm referring to ZIRP, since the OP was referencing cheap cash during ZIRP
> want to pay any of it back in tax
If they dont pay it back in tax, they pay it back in debasement of their savings and entitlements
Yep, inflation is just another kind of tax, and one that's quite hard to avoid.
If you look at the kind of person who makes massive donations to politicians and initiatives that are about massive tax reforms (think Missouri's recent ballot question about introducing a state sales tax and eventually sunset its income tax) you'll notice that a lot of them are very wealthy people who have very, very few people that they have to answer to in their lives. The one exception, it would seem, is the tax man, and they absolutely hate that.
Market forces like inflation aren't a person exerting control over them. They're the results of humans acting within social structures. These people have control over social structures; they're the elite. They can counter that market force with some other market force. Taxes? That's cold, hard math. There's no way around it, no feeling of agency to be had. So while it might be harder to avoid, it's not the financial effect that they worry about, because they have enough money to weather that. It's the feeling of obligation and powerlessness in the face of others that they can't brook.
"years ago" seems like the wrong criticism. Today's rate is lower than the rates from December 2022-October 2025. That seems like years ago.
Let's say pre-COVID.
That (the ZIRP period) was the anomaly; this is (historically) normal.
>Should be interesting to see how this impacts the AI hyper-scalers. They were already burning through cash like a furnace and were running out of people to borrow from
looks very similar to 2007-2008 - high rates plus an wide economy segment with very large debt. Now, the interesting question - did anybody "too large to fail" do (or got exposed in some other ways to) leveraged CDS on the hyperscalers bonds and private debt.
Edit: Whoever the hell flagged this lol....people were complaining the parent comment wasn't helpful so I took time to write a thoughtful response with citations. You can't win around here.
---
The counterintuitive part is that a lower Fed rate doesn't necessarily mean cheaper borrowing for the government. The Fed sets an overnight rate; someone lending for ten years cares about inflation and interest rates over those ten years. Keeping short-term rates low won't necessarily reassure that lender. [1]
It also helps to distinguish the government's debt from a giant credit card. Existing fixed-rate bonds keep their agreed interest payments. Higher borrowing costs feed into the budget as old debt matures and gets refinanced, and as new debt is issued. The pain accumulates rather than arriving all at once. [2]
Nor does a larger interest bill automatically require "printing money." Treasury borrowing and Fed money creation are separate decisions. [3]
The difficult question is how to contain inflation without causing more economic damage than necessary. A large debt load makes that tradeoff more expensive; it doesn't make either option painless.
[1] https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/monetary-polic...
[2] https://www.treasurydirect.gov/marketable-securities/treasur...
[3] https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/how-does-the-federal-res...
I thought bumping up the prime rate slowed consumer spending. But the recent price hikes are because supply is hosed (oil, tariffs), not that demand has been bidding up prices. So how is this supposed to help?
It doesn't matter whether it is a supply shock or a demand shock, the correct response to inflation is to raise rates, which reduces economic activity and in this situation the reduced activity reduces demand for oil, which is what is needed in an environment in which we have less oil than normal.
Although it is the third world that is going to take the hit, the wealthy nations will bid up the price of oil to ensure they continue to get it, the poorer nations will be priced out. What is an annoyance in the west -- say needing to delay a major purchase or postpone a vacation or reduce expenses - translates to famine and deindustrialization in the global south.
Maybe it's not such a good idea to be waging war against major resource exporting nations, the US and Europe are now sanctioning about half of the global resource exporting nations, and the only benefit of this is higher prices in our domestic economies and China coming in to sign trade deals for discounted Russian and Iranian oil.
KSA also needs to lay off the Houthis and lift the embargo, it's long past time that they give up trying to control who runs Yemen.
I mean, if predicting market behaviour was that simple, I'd be very rich by now. This is another unique moment, the beginning of the end of an empire possibly. Some unusual things are going to happen and it'll be tricky to predict reliably.
Best thing we can hope for here is Trump sees an obvious way out of this: return the economy to a predicable machine, reduce spending, tax the ultra wealthy, and ditch tariffs. But I don't think much of that's likely to occur.
We're in unchartered territory in many ways. Good luck.
Get ready for a fun ride my friends :)
Fun ride =
Oil is going up, possibly for a long time, which will have a big inflationary effect on everything. And it appears the USA government has lost the conflict it started and effectively given control over key oil delivery channels to Iran. Not to mention Saudia facing real issues from rebel groups / Yemen (simplification).
Government debt is high in several key economies, and the bond market is being saturated with AI-related bonds, as well as possibly people finally tired of lending the USA/France/UK money at low rates and demanding higher ones. And with higher interest rates and bonds rolling over it means more and more money going to pay for the debt, rather than core services.
Wild cards lurking in the bushes... AI, AGI, RSI.
And yonder you have a nuclear power floundering; its only source of hard currency is being rightfully degraded, and its leadership delusional.
And the one to watch IMO... Russian wheat export ability: wheat prices are up considerably, and combined with inflation from oil, this is the kind of stuff that creates waves of political change like the Arab Spring.
This is the right move. Inflationary pressures due to high oil prices and tariffs are not going away anytime soon. All the economic numbers point to a need for a rate hike. Not doing so has a much larger effect on the financial system than a 25 bps rate hike. Stagflation is a bigger risk to the economy.
Counterintuitively the rate hike can help lower things like mortgage rates by stabilizing the bond yields.
Definitely the right move, 100% agree.
I don't think that mortgage rates are going to go down; I think they will go up. Just my opinion.
I also think oil is about to go up even more, maybe for multiple years, which is going to be inflationary on everything we do. But, could be really good for solar growth, electrification, and electric cars.
Re: mortgage rates
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2026/09/16/heres-wha...
Remind me in 6 months :)
I'll be you; they are higher this time.
That wouldn’t be a great way to measure it. I’m only talking about the fed rates, how it impacts the bond market and therefore the mortgage rates. If someone decides to nuke the oil infrastructure of the world tomorrow, this rate hike doesn’t matter and your hopes and dreams of a low mortgage rate get nuked along with the oil infrastructure.
We'll continue through the depression we've started since 2008. (GDP growth should be closer to 3.5%-5%, but we haven't really escaped sub-2% since 2008) - our GDP has been depressed by at least 1-2% growth since that crisis, and I think a large part of it has been the inflationary cycle we started and never stopped.
The wars already put us into too much debt, Obama continued it for 8 years (granted, the deficit slowly went down, but it wasn't fixed). Trump and Biden did a huge disservice to the debt (but neither really cared much about it), and now I fear the path Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden have laid will not be easily fixed.
GDP growth is never going to be that high again. GDP growth is just per-capita GDP growth (1-1.5% per year) + population growth (used to be 1%, now is 0% or slightly negative). GDP growth of 1-1.5% will be normal going forward and could even go lower if population decline is at -.5% per year, for example.
I agree with you. We are still paying for 2008, and compounded the problem with Covid stimuli. I sure wish we would just rip the band aid off at this point, but it might already be too late. The global economy is jacked, China needs everyone to be consumers, and that well is running dry, globally.
Not sure tbh.
It’s a highly non-linear system, many moving parts, people and systems adapt.
It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future!
This comment isn't helpful. Please explain for those of us without a degree in economics.
Inflation is high, so interest rates need to go up to try to slow that, but the economy isn't doing amazing already, and higher interest rates won't help that.
Not to mention the US debt is _high_ as hell and bond yields mean that's more expensive.
And the country is run by a broken fool who has no interest or ability to fix any of that.
The country has been _run_ by fools for 26 years. Congress has had 26 years to do something about the fiscal situation, and we've had four presidents, and the fiscal responsible side of the electorate is never listened to.
Both sides are to blame - neither will fix the problem. Obama could've made that his goal - he was competent, had a lot of political good will, and many people were frustrated at the bailout policy Bush did, but instead it was inflationary printing (quantitative easing), Obamacare and Cash 4 Clunkers (which the used car market still hasn't recovered from).
I never voted for him - I didn't view him as honest, nor did he seem to indicate that he liked America, but was rather just a good talker - but I think he could've been a great president given a less radicalizing agenda.
He was probably the best situated president in terms of timing to fix the debt problem, but instead it was a good time for divisive politics. By the time Obama finished, it became clear neither party actually cared about the fiscally conservative Ron Paul supporting voting block.
> Both sides are to blame
— the one side after they fsck the country sideways, every goddamn time.
> The country has been _run_ by fools for 26 years.
It's hard to accept the 'everyone is the same' in light of Trump's antics. Remind me again which presidents started wars of choice at the behest of Israel even when they were explicitly warned of the consequences?
I would love to hear what was "radical" or "divisive" about Obama's policy. A significant portion of the country disliking him because of his skin color doesn't make his policies "radical"
A universal health care mandate were both radical and divisive, and the popular nickname for the ACA today is "Obamacare".
I happen to think the policy was a good idea, and voting to keep it in play was the best vote of John McCain's career ... but it was definitely both radical and divisive.
Now, much of the "mandate" has been stripped away, health care remains a mess, and access is far from affordable, but you can't really blame that one on Obama.
> A universal health care mandate were both radical and divisive
It seems quite ironic, given the frequent complaints about the inability of Congress to either govern effectively or fix health insurance (for many and various definitions of "fix"), that the ACA was so divisive. At least it got passed! Yet given the opportunity twice (2017-2019, 2025-2027), a politically viable alternative hasn't been offered up by opponents of the ACA, let alone being able to fully repeal it.
Lol cool so health care is your definition of "radical" and "decisive". Hint: it's neither of these things and the only reason it was considered as such was because Obama was black (see tan suit). Seems like we need a few more years of woke cause you still can't see the obvious
It was not radical and he adopted originally republican ideas. They even originally backed it.
The thing is, the divisiveness comes from one side - conservatives who were and are determine to oppose literally everything.
Why specifically 26 years? I agree that Congress has been increasingly useless, leading to more and more rule by presidential decree in order to have a government that runs at all, but there wasn't a step function 26 years ago.
its because prior to that (2000 Bush era), congress and president had a plan to payoff debt and had a balanced budget plan in place to avoid over spending.
Long term bond yields are not directly tied to the Fed funds rate.
The problem is the debt purchased by the Fed during QE had extremely low yields (COVID era) the reserves held by banks created by the Fed during QE now cost more to service by the Fed.
It’s worse than no ability to fix it — he caused a large part of it for unclear reasons
> he caused a large part of it for unclear reasons
Technically it was Besset, but Trump gave him the reigns.
The purpose seems to be to radically debase the dollar and setup a crises that requires an entitlement cut (Social Security) for "the good of the economy" while also expanding military spending at the same time.
Covid? Half the money printed happened under his watch the first admin. Biden continued the other half. Now we have yet another war to make matters worse. What are you proposing be done to fix it?
Well I sure wouldn't have started another war.
QE without public debt sterilization is going to appear as the costliest macroeconomic mistake of the early 21st century.
Disagree, fairly strongly. In 2008, four trillion dollars evaporated. In order to keep the economy from completely crashing, the Fed created $4T using QE and such tricks. The result was 15 years of flat. No inflation for 15 years. If inflation shows up a decade and a half later, that probably wasn't the fault of how QE was done.
You're getting my point wrong:
- I absolutely agree that inflation has nothing at all to do with QE, people who claimed that are just idiots who have a gold fetish.
- the problem I'm talking about is the fact that central banks didn't use QE as an opportunity to erase the public debt it bought. At the time it wouldn't have been an issue in any way. But now because inflation is back (due to oil) central banks cannot buy government bonds when they reach maturity and have to raise rates. Then the government bonds have become very expensive, and it has to be paid to the private sector on the market, so whenever a US govt security reaches maturity, the budget constraint increases. Sterilization of the debt would have alleviated this issue a lot at no cost.
Also, we should have taken the lessons of the era and raise the inflation target to 4%[1] at that time (it was definitely politically achievable then, now not so much).
[1]: https://www.imf.org/en/publications/wp/issues/2016/12/31/the...
I see. Well, what you propose might have the minor problem of being illegal for the Fed to do. I'm not perfectly sure (and I don't want to take the time to research this rabbit hole right now), but the Fed is deliberately different from the Treasury. It's not supposed to fund the government by creating money.
At a minimum, doing so would have created doubts about the future of the dollar. (Because countries that start having the central bank create money to fund the government often wind up in runaway inflation, with the currency becoming worthless.)
As to a 4% target: Given that they were stuck at 0% for the next decade (and tried, and failed, to get up to 2%), why would they move the target to 4%? They already couldn't do what they said, why double their failure?
> see. Well, what you propose might have the minor problem of being illegal for the Fed to do. I'm not perfectly sure (and I don't want to take the time to research this rabbit hole right now), but the Fed is deliberately different from the Treasury. It's not supposed to fund the government by creating money.
That's a good point, but it's not as clear cut. The Fed is supposed to achieve the double goal of full employment and price stability and it's not forbidden to make money out of thin air for that purpose, that's the reason why QE is a thing at all. The exact legality of canceling US debt on its balance sheet isn't clear, but:
1. Before 2014 the Obama admin had the power to pass a law making that explicitly legal.
2. There are examples of theoretically valid instruments to achieve the same goal which have been discussed in the period (see the “1 trillion dollar coin”).
> At a minimum, doing so would have created doubts about the future of the dollar. (Because countries that start having the central bank create money to fund the government often wind up in runaway inflation, with the currency becoming worthless.)
Context matters: doing it now would send a disastrous signal, but back in the early 2010s the challenge was to drive inflation up, which is why the Fed used QE in the first place. If anything such a move could have made QE more efficient to achieve its goal (in addition to helping today's public finances, which I argue would have had a stabilizing effect over the long run).
> As to a 4% target: Given that they were stuck at 0% for the next decade (and tried, and failed, to get up to 2%), why would they move the target to 4%? They already couldn't do what they said, why double their failure?
The IMF paper I linked above is pretty clear about the goal of such a measure, but the idea is to have more leeway in case of crisis, because if your inflation is around 2%, your Fed target rate is around 2% as well and you can only lower it by 2% as a stimulus measure, whereas with a 4% baseline inflation rate you have twice the leverage in terms of target rate.
Yay stagflation!
> And the country is run by a broken fool who has no interest or ability to fix any of that.
Trump will be gone in three years, but you'll still have an electorate that wants more free stuff while also getting tax cuts. There is zero appetite for fiscal reform in the U.S. The geometric growth rate of U.S. debt has been consistent since 2010 and will remain so when AOC is President: https://usafacts.org/answers/how-much-debt-does-the-us-have/...
You really really just need to raise taxes. Just find a way to sell that to the public (focus on the rich or large corporations or whatever outgroup you want basically)
Our budget deficit is $2 trillion. To close it, you need to significantly raise taxes on the fattest part of the income curve, which is the top 25%. They have $10 trillion of income. https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-in.... An across the board 200 basis point increase would close the deficit. That would raise their taxes to 38% at the low end to 46% at the high end, which is perfectly fine.
The problem is that the top 25% isn’t an “out group” in either coalition. You have Facebook PMs who vote blue and guys who own a small plumbing company who vote red both making $1 million+ annually and neither wanting their own taxes to go up. Then there are the guys below them looking up. Over 10% of the country will be in the top 1% of earners at some point in their life. So the guys pulling in a few hundred K as a senior engineer or construction manager don’t want their taxes to go up either.
> Over 10% of the country will be in the top 1% of earners at some point in their life
Though most of them only for one year due to temporary revenue, so it's not that rational.
At peak career ages, the 75th percentile household income is almost $200k and the 90th percentile is almost $300k. That’s exactly the range you need to tax. Across all ages, households earning between $150k and $800k earn half of all income—$7 trillion.
The wealthy have been taxed appropriately in the past, we just need to do it again. There is precedent.
The Peak Year (1944): The 94% rate applied to taxable income over $200,000 (which included a 3% regular tax and a 91% surtax). That $200,000 would be incomes over $3.8 Million today.
The High-Tax Era: Top marginal rates remained above 90% for two decades, spanning from 1944 through 1963.
This is supposedly the era that made America "great".
Okay, but how much tax revenue was raised from those high marginal rates? The top rate is meaningless without knowing how much money that actually brings in for the government. That’s the key part of the analysis for purposes of this discussion.
Aside from a brief blip during WWII, federal tax receipts as a percentage of GDP have been stable at around 17% of GDP, going back to 1950: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S. Those high marginal rates never actually raised very much revenue. To close the deficit, we have to get that 17% number up to 23%.
To raise revenue, you need to lower the threshold at which high marginal rates kick in so that you actually capture the fat part of the tax base. About half of all income is earned by people making $100k-800k. That’s around where the heavy tax burden falls in every western european country.
> taking half of someone’s money is totally fine
Okay. Then let’s also reduce what’s spent welfare/benefits by a similar amount, at least we’re not taking money they worked for.
No, U.S. benefits are at a typical level for an OECD country. The problem is the taxes. U.S. taxation is only 25% of GDP, versus 40% in western Europe. We could raise taxes $3 trillion annually and still be at the level of one of the more responsible European countries like the U.K.
Disagree. We have a spending problem, not a tax revenue problem. No matter how much the govt brings in, it will want to spend an increasing amount more.
Is there anything that can't be solved by bigger government?
There is also insane amount of debt from ai related investment. China's free model is crushing the ai margins while these companies need to pay their debt and obligations. The debt bomb clock is ticking.
The next few years would be fun.
Higher rates means financing/borrowing is more expensive. Mortgage rates will go up, possibly pushing home prices down. This is neutral for buyers because of higher rates, but bad for sellers. Loans (personal or business) will be harder to come by. Layoffs, or at least hiring freezes, are more likely. Companies will move into a defensive rather than an growth mode. Higher unemployment will lead to more desperation, and possibly consumer defaults on loans and mortgages.
Government interest payments, which are already high, will become higher after future bond sales. This will compound future budgetary problems and could eventually lead to cuts in entitlements. If so, expect crime and political instability (already a problem) to rise in the future. This will take a while, though.
Normally rates are increased to lower inflation by reducing the supply of money. Given the multiple concurrent problems with energy (Hormuz, Red Sea/Yanbu, Russia/Ukraine, possibly Libya as problems are starting there, China is buying aggressively) then higher rates may not be enough to stop inflation. This would create a situation where both borrowing is harder and inflation continues to rage. This is very bad and will lead to demand destruction (nobody’s buying anything because it’s too expensive and they can’t finance it anyway). This results in a severe recession at the minimum.
Edit: wow, I really set off a discussion with this. See replies below for clarification on mortgage rates, which is the least important part anyways. Also, I should note that a lot of the above is a worst case scenario, if energy isn’t solved soon and especially if bonds don’t respond to the hike, leading to further hikes.
“Higher rates means financing/borrowing is more expensive. Mortgage rates will go up,…”
This is highly inaccurate. The 10 year US treasury is a better metric for predicting mortgage rates. We saw this during the past interest rate cuts, interest for loans and mortgages still went up, remember? I do, because I was borrowing at the time. And why was that? Because the 10-year treasury continued going up, and that matters more than short term interest rates. The 10-year treasury is about expectations about the future, so we need to look at how the market responds before screaming mortgage rates will go up, they could actually go down.
Variable rate (loans) track the Fed rate. Fixed rate (loans) track the long term treasury yields.
I didn’t say it was the best metric, but they trend in the same direction over time.
The 10 year and fed rates are usually correlated. Occasionally rates spike or dip without moving the 10 year, but these events are brief. This could be a short spike, but only time will tell.
Home prices are sticky on the way down, 25 basis points won't change much
Supply is way up and sales are way down, on average: https://wolfstreet.com/2026/09/10/sales-of-existing-single-f...
This could be the catalyst to lower prices if sellers get spooked, especially if gas prices keep going up.
Your graph shows that home sales have been at a constant rate for the last 3 years. They are way down from 2020-2021, when covid plus low interest rates caused a home buying frenzy, but this is not new. We've been in this regime for the last 4ish years, 25 basis points is not going to change anything. In fact, interest rates are lower now than they were a year ago.
That's not to say that rising rates aren't a sign of bad things, the definitely are, it's just not going to make much of an impact with this magnitude of change.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/fedfunds
Sales have remained low (at GFC levels) while inventory has continued to climb. In other words supply is up and demand is flat. Doesn’t look good to me, but I’m not a professional market analyst.
It all depends on how long buyers (in aggregate) are willing to hold out, or if they are simply unable to buy at these prices. And nobody really knows that.
Mortgage rates are not decided by the fed rate as much as they are by the bond yields. There’s a reason why the mortgage rates were above 7% yesterday even when the fed rate has been stable for a while.
This rate hike is aimed to stabilize the bond yields which in turn will lower the mortgage rates.
But bond yields are based on a market.
If interest rates go up, bonds get sold (for better yield bearing products), pushing the yields of those bonds higher. And it finds some equilibrium. The fact it isn't immediate has to do with short term vs long term bonds. When they mature and the pace of arbitrage.
I don't see how a rate hike is meant to lower mortgage rate. And just looking at the figures shows it's the opposite effect.
Logically, if borrowing money becomes more expensive, how could borrowing specifically for the purpose of buying houses become cheaper.
You have to look at the current context. Bond yields have been spiking, mostly because of the inflation expectations from oil prices and tariffs (mostly oil prices). Mortgages mostly track 10 year yields, which is why when fed dropped the rates back to back, the mortgage rates didn’t come down. The current hike (and the next one) is supposed to create a deflationary pressure, but also provide confidence to the market that the fed will step in to cool inflation if necessary. This in turn lowers the yield on 10 year treasuries and therefore mortgage rates.
The fed rate provides a floor for mortgage rates, but the 10 year yield and mortgage demand decide the ceiling. Currently the demand is pretty low, and therefore the yield mostly controls the mortgage rates.
what I'm saying is that Fed hikes interest rates → bonds sell off → yields rise → mortgage rates rise.
This is logical and empirically observed.
But you are right on the longer term effect. Zooming out: Fed hikes → inflation cools → inflation expectations fall → yields fall → mortgage rates fall.
But the latter is not guaranteed, and it takes time.
I'm unsure to understand how the ceiling and floor mechanisms work. But will dig into that. Thanks.
> Fed hikes interest rates → bonds sell off → yields rise
This part isn’t true. It can happen, but not always, especially right now.
So far you are right, yields are falling since yesterday.
It seems like this would depend on the bond market’s perception of whether or not this hike is the start of a trend. It could be seen as a signal that political attempts to lower rates have been unsuccessful.
Neutral for buyers? Absolutely not.
As a buyer you rather want to take out a loan in a high interest rate environment than a low interest rate environment, given that the monthly payment is the same.
1000 usd extra paid towards your mortgage actually makes a difference when the rate is 15% compared to when it is 1.5%
There's also "date the rate, marry the price". If you're a buyer and think that rates are going to come down within a couple of years, you can lock in the lower price of your home for property tax purposes and then refinance when rates are lower.
But a lot of people bought in 2024 expecting that to happen.
Only if you expect rates to come down in the future. If the monthly payment is the same, I guess you have a slightly bigger mortgage interest deduction for tax purposes, but you’re still paying the same amount each month.
If you expect rates to come down soon, you can plan to refinance in the future, but that’s a gamble. Rates may not go down, or the value of the house could go down before you refinance, which may make refinancing more expensive depending on how much you owe.
No?
Paying down a high interest mortgage will always have bigger impact on the dollar than paying down a low interest mortgage.
If you’re paying the same amount monthly, your cash flow is the same. Are we not comparing apples to apples here? I mean a traditional fixed mortgage.
I’m comparing a mortgage with a high rate and lower principal to one with a lower rate and high principal, where the minimum monthly payments are the same and the owner pays the minimum.
A high interest mortgage just means that you pay more total interest over the life of the mortgage. In any case traditional mortgages are front-loaded, so you pay more towards interest up front than you do principal.
I said that the monthly payment is the same. Not that you pay the same amount towards your loan.
An optional extra payment is worth more when interest rates are higher.
Ie. An optional extra payment of 1000$ will pay your 150$ a year in saved interest when the rate is 15% and only 15$ when the rate is 1.5%.
Everything else being equal, optional payments has a higher value, which represent value to the buyer.
This is true, but I was not assuming extra payments and I don’t know where you got that assumption from. Many people can’t afford to make extra payments given the already high cost of housing and the rising cost of everything else.
My initial complaint was merely that the interest rate it not neutral to buyers.
I guess I was just referring to average buyers, who don’t often pay extra.
The question is what will rates do in the future. If rates go down you refinance, if they go up even more you hold your rates. Either way so you are fine long term, but it can be 10 years before it pays off.
Note that the US mostly does fixed rate for life of the loan. Many countries only have ARM (adjustable rates), and those exist in the US as well. If you have an ARM that changes things greatly.
This really doesn’t make sense.
Higher interest rates mean the monthly payment is higher. You need to pay back the principal + the interest.
He assumed that the payment is the same meaning the principal for the same house went down and so this is neutral. If your payment is the same it doesn't matter what is principal vs interest. In the best cases rates go down in the future and then you refinance and your payment goes way down.
House prices tend to be "sticky", so that assumption is probably wrong. People who own a house often cannot afford to sell for the current value since it won't pay off their loan and leave enough money left over for a replacement house so they avoid moving. Eventually things get bad enough that they "sell short", but that takes a credit hit so you don't want to do that until the loss is large (and in turn you gain more).
Maybe the mortgage system is different in the US.
But if you have a 25 year term on a loan for a $500,000
Approx numbers:
5%: $2922 monthly, total paid: $876,885
10%: $4543 monthly, total paid: $1,353,000.
You didn't do the same math.
Given a $1500 monthly payment and a 30 year loan (30 year is most common in the US), at 5% loan is $279,400; at 10% the loan is for 170,900.
How is 10% less than 5% ?
Yes, so the 500k is not fixed - that should be obvious from these calculations.
Stagflation is when the economy stagnates yet inflation is higher than ideal. Inflation and economic activity are typically correlated, and the conventional wisdom back in the day was that you couldn't have unemployment going up and things costing more, because it was expected that demand going down puts a downward pressure on prices. When people aren't hiring and buying but things cost more and more, life just kind of sucks. The last time this happened was in the 1970s in the aftermath of a few oil embargoes that made oil prices go through the roof and a disastrously expensive failed war in Vietnam, there was gas rationing, it sucked.
You may notice a few key similarities now with oil embargoes, reduced hiring, an extremely expensive war, and rapidly expanding government debt as a result of that war. If you want a qualitative feeling about people's moods in the 70s, you can watch such movies as:
Taxi Driver The Deer Hunter The Warriors Americathon Network
I suggest A Boy And His Dog (based on a Harlan Ellison story)
For those of us without a degree in economics the last few years have seemed a bit unhinged from reality so I will not claim any deep insight here. However, it is hard to imagine that an increase in cost of debt will not have some impact and probably in ways not anticipated by many of those with economics degrees.
Last time interest rates went up, Startups and SaaS went down, which many on HN 's livelihood depends.
why are you responding to a person like it is an LLM?
The comment could be more about the politics of this not the economics, Donald Trump has made it clear he is very against this sort of rate rise
What Trump says is never clear. It's also not a reliable source for what behavior the administration (or even he) exhibits.
Higher rates means USG will need to print more money to pay for $40TN debt which will increase inflation which will force higher rates.
The debt is owed by the treasury, fed prints the money. What you’re describing is not how the monetary system works.
The Fed purchased Treasury securities during COVID QE. Those securities had low yields and cash reserves were created during those purchases.
Those cash reserves are held by banks which the Fed funds rate pays interest on (what was hiked).
Meanwhile the fixed rate debt from QE remains the same.
bwb is likely referring to the likelihood that this will send Trump into a tremendous rage.
I can't wait to see the next Truth Social post.
hah i know, his own man raised rates, he will probably send the military out to get Walsh