The Fed will be a New Creature Soon, and No One Knows What It’ll Look Like

Markets are blowing off this uncertainty for now.
On Thursday, the Senate confirmed Randal Quarles, President Trump’s first Fed nominee, as a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. During his confirmation hearing, Quarles said it was time to roll back some of the regulations that were imposed on banks after they’d imploded and threatened to take down the global financial system. He will become the chief bank regulator at the Fed, filling the slot that Daniel Tarullo left behind when he resigned unexpectedly in April.
Quarles is founder of private investment firm, The Cynosure Group. Fed Governor Jerome Powell is also a Cynosure alumnus. Quarles had been a partner at private equity firm The Carlyle Group and served as undersecretary of the Treasury under President George W. Bush. WHIRRRR makes the revolving door.
One down, four more to go.
The Fed’s Board of Governors has seven slots, currently chaired by Janet Yellen. After Quarles’ appointment, potentially four more will need to be filled over the next few months.
The seven board members are part of the policy-setting 12-member Federal Open Markets Committee. The other five members of the FOMC are the president of the New York Fed and on a one-year rotating basis four presidents of the remaining 11 regional Federal Reserve Banks.

This post was published at Wolf Street on Oct 6, 2017.

Five Takeaways from the House’s Yellen Hearing

On Wednesday, Janet Yellen testified before the House Financial Services Committee. Though the hearings lost much of their appeal when Dr. Ron Paul retired from Congress, the House Republicans have maintained a reputation for being far more hostile to the Federal Reserve than their colleagues in the Senate – managing to generate some worthwhile moments. While little news was made, with Yellen maintaining her support for generally low interest rates, there were some points made today worth noting.
1) Republicans Continue to Push on the Fed’s Subsidy to Wall Street Starting in 2008, the Federal Reserve has paid interest on excess reserves parked at the Fed. While this had never been done prior to the financial crisis, this policy has now become a vital tool for the Fed in setting short-term interest rates. As the Fed has increased the Federal funds rate, so too has it increased its ‘Interest On Excess Reserves’ (IOER), now paying 1.25% on the over 2 trillion banks hold at the Fed.
This policy has drawn increasing criticism from House Republicans, and Yellen faced criticism from both Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling and Rep. Andy Barr, who hold Dr. Paul’s old position as chairman of the monetary subcommittee. Accurately, both men highlight that this policy means the Federal Reserve – and by extension the US Treasury that would otherwise receive these interest payments – are directly subsidizing large Wall Street and foreign banks. Considering these IOER payments are projected to be $27 billion this year, it’s good to more attention be brought to this obvious example of Wall Street cronyism.

This post was published at Ludwig von Mises Institute on July 13, 2017.

Trump Fires all Lobbyists – Keeping His Word & More

Trump is keeping his word so far. He has admitted that he was part of the problem paying lobbyists to get preferential treatment. As they say, if you want to catch a thief, you hire a thief. In this case, Trump has really been on the other side and admitted he even paid Hillary to attend his wedding. He has cleaned house, throwing out anyone who has been a lobbyist from his cabinet. Nonetheless, he cannot fire Janet Yellen from the Federal Reserve. I also believe that would be a mistake. She inherited a nightmare and is by no means the origin of the problems.

This post was published at Armstrong Economics on Nov 18, 2016.

Conflicts Of Interest

Fed Governor Lael Brainard has donated to Clinton’s campaign and is widely viewed as a potential Clinton pick for Treasury secretary. Yellen hesitated and then demurred when Representative Scott Garrett of New Jersey asked whether Brainard would have a conflict of interest if she were indeed in talks with Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s campaign about a position. The election takes place Nov. 8.
‘I would have to consult my counsel, I’m not aware that that’s a conflict,’ Yellen said in testimony to the House Financial Services Committee in Washington, while rejecting Garrett’s suggestion that the U. S. central bank has a political bias.
Source: Fed Politics in Spotlight as Yellen Cornered by Lawmaker | Bloomberg
Imagine how higher management would feel about you reacting in the same situation. Goldman has been known to lay off its employees for even donating to the Trump campaign. So a similar situation would be you, an employee of a firm, donating to a political campaign, and later getting a promotion as a result of that donation.
Of course, Lael Brainard herself has a long history of working in the executive branch to begin with. She initially served in Bill Clinton’s administration, and was appointed Undersecretary of the Treasury for International Affairs early in Barack Obama’s presidency. In 2014, she was nominated to the Federal Reserve Board of Governers, and it appears the majority of ‘conflicts of interest’ and connections with her past employers were largely ignored during her confirmation.

This post was published at Zero Hedge on Oct 5, 2016.

Yellen May Quit If Trump Wins – -Please Do!

Even with two years remaining in her term, Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen may quit if Donald Trump is elected president, an economist argued on Tuesday.
Paul Ashworth, chief U. S. economist at Capital Economics, said in a note to clients that Trump doubled down on criticism of the Fed during his debate with Hillary Clinton.
Trump said the U. S. economy is in a ‘big, fat, ugly bubble’ and specifically called out Yellen.
‘And we have a Fed that’s doing political things. This Janet Yellen of the Fed,’ he said. ‘The day Obama goes off, and he leaves, and goes out to the golf course for the rest of his life to play golf, when they raise interest rates, you’re going to see some very bad things happen, because the Fed is not doing their job. The Fed is being more political than Secretary Clinton.’
Ashworth noted that, after the last meeting, Yellen fought back against earlier charges by Trump that the central bank was acting in a politically motivated manner.

This post was published at David Stockmans Contra Corner By Steve Goldstein via Marketwatch ‘ September 30, 2016.

The Fed’s Monetary Politburo Is Finally Catching Some Flack

Now that’s more like it. Echoing Donald Trump’s Monday night bull’s-eye regarding the Fed’s thoroughly political essence, Rep. Scott Garrett put more wood to Janet Yellen during yesterday’s hearing:
Rep. Scott Garrett, R-N. J., seized Trump’s mantle during Wednesday’s hearing, saying ‘the Fed has an unacceptable cozy relationship’ with the Obama administration and Democrats.
‘As the saying goes, perception is reality,’ Garrett told Yellen. ‘Whether you like it or not, the public increasingly believes that the Fed’s independence is nothing more than a myth.’
Of course it’s a myth, and a dangerous one at that. The truth is, Keynesian monetary central planning is inherently, massively and irremediably ‘political’.
That’s because it interjects the state deeply into the money and capital markets – -the very heart of capitalism – -and thereby in plenary fashion manipulates, rigs and falsifies the prices of all financial assets.
So doing, it supersedes governance by the many via continuous auction and free market processes of financial valuation and allocation with governance by the few, who rule arbitrarily and often secretly via ideological whims and shibboleths that they are pleased to call ‘policy’.
Worse still, the Eccles Building politicians who rule the financial markets directly – -and through them much of the balance of capitalism indirectly – – are unelected and are accountable to no democratic oversight and control whatsoever. They have essentially seized great power in the manner of a coup d’ etat, and have then added insult to injury by proclaiming the utterly spurious doctrine of Fed ‘independence’.

This post was published at David Stockmans Contra Corner by David Stockman ‘ September 29, 2016.

Yellen Grilled on Fed Partisanship

Just days after Donald Trump accused the Federal Reserve of playing politics with low interest rates during the first presidential debate, Congressman Scott Garrett challenged Chairman Janet Yellen today on whether Fed officials were guilty of playing politics this campaign season. In particular, Garrett questioned the actions of Fed Governor Lael Brainard who raised eyebrows earlier this year by donating the legal maximum to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
Since the Fed’s decision to maintain low interest rates is widely seen as benefiting Hillary Clinton, and given that Brainard’s actions opened herself up to what Garrett described as ‘the appearance of conflict,’ Garrett asked whether she had recused herself from the FOMC. Yellen responded that Brainard did not, was not asked to, and was not barred from donating to political campaigns according to the Hatch Act.
Garrett pushed further. Noting that multiple media outlets have been openly speculating about a potential role for Brainard in a Clinton administration, the congressman asked Yellen whether such a conversation between Brainard and Clinton would be a violation of Fed policy. Yellen responded by saying that while she would need to check with Fed lawyers, she didn’t see any conflict.
That’s right, according to Janet Yellen, there is nothing wrong with a sitting Federal Reserve official lobbying a presidential candidate for a future job, even though they have the ability to vote on Fed decisions that can dramatically impact the American economy.

This post was published at Ludwig von Mises Institute on Sept. 28, 2016.

At Last – – Even The FT Says Fed on Ropes as Yellen Seeks to Fend off Trump Blows

After a fusillade of excoriating and in many ways unprecedented attacks on the Federal Reserve by the Republican presidential candidate, Janet Yellen, the US central bank’s chair, finally hit back.
Ms Yellen last Wednesday dismissed as emphatically wrong Donald Trump’s claims that she and her institution were keeping short-term interest rates low at the behest of the Obama administration. ‘Partisan politics play no role in our decisions,’ she declared.
Mr Trump is throwing punches at a time when the US central bank is under assault from both sides of the partisan divide, and at a time when polling suggests public confidence in its leadership has declined during a subpar economic recovery.
Some experts say the Fed is vulnerable and that the populist attacks could fuel demands by politicians for tighter constraints on its policy freedoms. Mr Trump ‘is tossing a lot of fuel on the fire’, says Sarah Binder, a professor of political science at George Washington University. ‘It intensifies the partisan criticism of the Fed and keeps the Fed in the politicians’ crosshairs.’ Mr Trump’s interventions by no means mark the first time the Fed has been turned into a political punching bag. Previous Fed chairs have been the subject of barbs during presidential campaigns – including in 2011 when Republican candidate Rick Perry accused former Fed chair Ben Bernanke of ‘treasonous’ behaviour by conducting quantitative easing. Past administrations have seen outbreaks of tension with Fed chiefs, including under presidents George HW Bush and Richard Nixon.

This post was published at David Stockmans Contra Corner By Sam Fleming, Financial Times ‘ September 28, 2016.

At Last – – FT Says Fed on Ropes as Yellen Seeks to Fend off Trump Blows

After a fusillade of excoriating and in many ways unprecedented attacks on the Federal Reserve by the Republican presidential candidate, Janet Yellen, the US central bank’s chair, finally hit back.
Ms Yellen last Wednesday dismissed as emphatically wrong Donald Trump’s claims that she and her institution were keeping short-term interest rates low at the behest of the Obama administration. ‘Partisan politics play no role in our decisions,’ she declared.
Mr Trump is throwing punches at a time when the US central bank is under assault from both sides of the partisan divide, and at a time when polling suggests public confidence in its leadership has declined during a subpar economic recovery.
Some experts say the Fed is vulnerable and that the populist attacks could fuel demands by politicians for tighter constraints on its policy freedoms. Mr Trump ‘is tossing a lot of fuel on the fire’, says Sarah Binder, a professor of political science at George Washington University. ‘It intensifies the partisan criticism of the Fed and keeps the Fed in the politicians’ crosshairs.’ Mr Trump’s interventions by no means mark the first time the Fed has been turned into a political punching bag. Previous Fed chairs have been the subject of barbs during presidential campaigns – including in 2011 when Republican candidate Rick Perry accused former Fed chair Ben Bernanke of ‘treasonous’ behaviour by conducting quantitative easing. Past administrations have seen outbreaks of tension with Fed chiefs, including under presidents George HW Bush and Richard Nixon.

This post was published at David Stockmans Contra Corner on September 28, 2016.

The Donald Nailed It: ‘We Are In A Big Fat Ugly Bubble’

Most of the 90 minutes last night was a waste – with both candidates lobbing well-worn clichs, slogans and sound bites at the audience and each other.
But there was one brief moment that made it all worthwhile. That was when Donald Trump peeled the bark off the Fed’s phony recovery narrative and warned that the stupendous stock market bubble it has created will come crashing down the minute it stops pegging rates to the zero bound.
‘…… Typical politician. All talk, no action. Sounds good, doesn’t work. Never going to happen. Our country is suffering because people like Secretary Clinton have made such bad decisions in terms of our jobs and in terms of what’s going on.
Now, look, we have the worst revival of an economy since the Great Depression. And believe me: We’re in a bubble right now. And the only thing that looks good is the stock market, but if you raise interest rates even a little bit, that’s going to come crashing down.
We are in a big, fat, ugly bubble. And we better be awfully careful. And we have a Fed that’s doing political things. This Janet Yellen of the Fed. The Fed is doing political – by keeping the interest rates at this level. And believe me: The day Obama goes off, and he leaves, and goes out to the golf course for the rest of his life to play golf, when they raise interest rates, you’re going to see some very bad things happen, because the Fed is not doing their job. The Fed is being more political than Secretary Clinton.

This post was published at David Stockmans Contra Corner by David Stockman ‘ September 27, 2016.

The Effects Of Money On Trade

There can be little doubt now outside of orthodox economics that the global economy is actually slowing, not accelerating as has been predicted. Economists themselves, however, continue to claim that things are getting better when the data strongly suggests otherwise. The latest depressing figures are from a pair of (orthodox) supranational organizations. First, the World Trade Organization (WTO) drastically reduced its estimates for trade growth this year, cutting them sharply from just a few months ago.
The World Trade Organization cut its forecast for global trade growth this year by more than a third on Tuesday, reflecting a slowdown in China and falling levels of imports into the United States.
The new figure of 1.7 percent, down from the WTO’s previous estimate of 2.8 percent in April, marked the first time in 15 years that international commerce was expected to lag the growth of the world economy, the trade body said.
While it will come as a shock to Janet Yellen’s public face, the WTO specifically cited both of the world’s biggest two economies and not just China as the unrelated ‘overseas’ (from the US perspective) problem. For all the reliance upon the unemployment rate here, there is a shocking disconnect in how supposedly rapid and sustained job growth just hasn’t translated into economic gains accrued anywhere. For an economy at ‘full employment’, there just isn’t any ‘demand’ growth, a fact being felt and described in grim detail especially overseas.

This post was published at David Stockmans Contra Corner by Jeffrey P. Snider ‘ September 27, 2016.

Dangerous Bubbles In Plain Sight

Jesse Felder published an incisive bubble finance chart over the weekend. It is yet another reminder that Janet Yellen and her merry band of money printers are oblivious to the dangerous speculation and valuation excesses that their policies have implanted throughout the financial system.
Relative to disposable income, the value of household financial assets now far exceeds the last two bubble peaks. And that has happened in an economic environment which suggests just the opposite. To wit, valuation multiples and cap rates should be falling owing the fact that the productivity and growth capacity of the US economy has been heading south ever since the turn of the century.
***
What is even more striking about this chart is what’s hidden behind the denominator. Since the eve of the financial crisis in 2007, a rapidly increasing share of DPI (disposable personal income) has been accounted for by the explosive growth of transfer payments.
Needless to say, transfer payments do not represent newly produced income that can be capitalized into the value of aggregate societal wealth. By definition, transfer payments are extracted via taxation from the incomes of current producers – – or via taxation of future incomes if they are funded with increased government debt.

This post was published at David Stockmans Contra Corner on September 26, 2016.

The Fed’s Decision Was So Bad – – Even Bill Gross Was Speechless

After the Federal Reserve decided to leave interest rates unchanged, bond guru Bill Gross told CNBC he was barely able to speak.
‘I’m choked with emotion and hardly able to speak,’ the portfolio manager at Janus Capital Management said in an interview with CNBC’s ‘Power Lunch.’ ‘After hawkish talk at Jackson Hole from [Fed Chair] Yellen and [Vice Chair] Stan Fischer, who even said there’d be two hikes in 2016, they’ve chosen to defer once more a necessary hike to normalize short-term interest rates and provide savers, in my view, with at least a bit of thin gruel to work with to provide for education, retirement and health-care needs.’
He believes the contradiction between what Fed officials have said leading up to the meeting and the outcome of the gathering is leaving investors ‘very confused.’

This post was published at David Stockmans Contra Corner By Michelle Fox via CNBC ‘ September 22, 2016.

What Will Result From Sideways?

The economy of 2015 started out ‘unexpectedly’ weak before succumbing to ‘global turmoil.’ It was the events of last summer that began to sow serious doubts about not just the economic narrative seeking to dismiss weakness (‘transitory’) but rather central banking and QE itself. The repeat in January/February further eroded mainstream credibility, particularly since only a few weeks before the Federal Reserve in particular pronounced full health. It was an embarrassing but poignant ‘dollar’ rebuke.
In the middle of 2015 just prior to the outbreak of the ‘dollar’ ‘run’, it was perhaps somewhat understandable for the layperson or the general public to wonder what was going on. Any disruption in terms of the domestic economy did seem as Janet Yellen was claiming. For all the grief even by late July last year, everything seemed to be limited to overseas events; a fact which economists and policymakers played up whenever they could. They should have known better.
I wrote at the end of last July that what was going on overseas was yet another warning even though it may not have seemed like it had anything to do with the United States:
Sticking with purely financial expression of the eurodollar standard it is easy at times to forget such monetary influence has very real consequences. That is true in the US in particular, as even though the recovery is both deficient and waning it isn’t the disaster it is in other, connected places. It was, after all, the rise of the eurodollar standard as a wholesale system starting in the middle 1990′s that more tightly stitched the global economy, an open system architecture that eludes, still, the grasp of monetary policymakers. As such, they have a great tendency to miss and misapprehend what is really happening and because of that they will simply make it all worse without much hope for an upside.

This post was published at David Stockmans Contra Corner on September 20, 2016.

A Messaging Tip For The Donald: It’s The Fed, Stupid!

The Fed’s core policies of 2% inflation and 0% interest rates are kicking the economic stuffings out of Flyover America. They are based on the specious academic theory that financial gambling fuels economic growth and that all economic classes prosper from inflation and march in lockstep together as prices and wages ascend on the Fed’s appointed path.
Au contraire! Those propositions are the most economically destructive and wantonly unjust notions ever embraced by an agency of the state. They clobber the middle- and lower-end of the income ladder while showering the top tier of financial asset owners with stupendous windfalls of unearned gain.
So the nation’s rogue central bank is essentially a reverse Robin Hood on steroids. If Donald Trump wants to hit the ball out of the park next Monday evening, therefore, he needs to quickly skip over his dog-eared income tax cut plan and put the wood good and hard to the Fed, Janet Yellen, and our unelected financial rulers.
They are killing wages, off-shoring jobs, trashing savers, subsidizing the banks, gifting Wall Street speculators with endless financial bubbles and rigging the markets to insure that the Democrats win.

This post was published at David Stockmans Contra Corner on September 19, 2016.

Red Ponzi Keeps Sinking – -Despite Beijing’s Desperate Efforts To Goose State-Owned Enterprizes

The US is not alone in its corporate profit slump. In China, profits at State-Owned Enterprises fell a further 6.5% year-over-year in the January to July period. Estimated to have been RMB 1.31 trillion (about $195 billion), SOE profits are being dragged down by those firms under control of the central government. Locally-administered SOE’s showed net income declining by only 0.3% in the period, whereas the larger, central SOE’s reported a 9% contraction Y/Y.
These results aren’t surprising given China’s economic condition, an unending slowdown now dragging into its fifth year. But more than that, this state-structured economic framework is being used once more this year to try to help cushion the blow from the lack of demand that once drove its vast industrial/export engine. Some economists continue to believe that the country is transitioning to an internal, consumer-oriented ‘model’ but the economic results and the pressure that central authorities are putting on especially SOE’s and the overall state-administered sector suggest otherwise.
China is an industrial economy and will sink or float based on global demand for its products. Contrary to economists here (or anywhere, really), the Chinese know very well that Janet Yellen’s economy is a myth, a figment conjured by parsing an often intentionally incomplete economic account (the unemployment rate and ‘professional forecasters’). Despite the profit pains, the Chinese government has been pushing the state sector to invest where the private sector now openly refuses.
This is a huge problem and again it belies the notion that it is simply an economy in transition. The government’s state-run news site, China Daily, is very explicit about what is now China’s growing investment problem.

This post was published at David Stockmans Contra Corner by Jeffrey P. Snider ‘ September 13, 2016.

A Homerun For The Donald – -Attack The Fed’s War On Savers, Workers And The Unborn (Taxpayers)

The central banks have gone so far off the deep-end with financial price manipulation that it is only a matter of time before some astute politician comes after them with all barrels blasting. As a matter of fact, that appears to be exactly what Donald Trump unloaded on bubble vision this morning:
By keeping interest rates low, the Fed has created a ‘false stock market,’ Donald Trump argued in a wide-ranging CNBC interview, exclaiming that Fed Chair Janet Yellen and central bank policymakers are very political, and should be ‘ashamed’of what they’re doing to the country…
He’s completely correct. After all, they are crushing real wages with their 2% inflation targeting; destroying savers with NIRP and sub-zero rates; and burying unborn taxpayers in monumental debts that today’s politicians are pleased to issue with reckless abandon because the short-run carry cost is nil.
Interest on the Uncle Sam’s $19.4 trillion of debt, for example, is easily $500 billion lower than its true economic cost based on a normal yield after inflation and taxes and elimination of the phony $100 billion per year in so-called Fed ‘profits’ that are booked by the treasury as negative interest expense.
Alas, when interest rates eventually normalize, the Treasury’s debt service costs will soar by hundreds of billions. At the same time, the entirety of the Fed’s ‘profits’, which are conjured from thin air because it buys interest-yielding government and GSE debt with printing press liabilities which cost virtually nothing, will disappear. That’s because it will be forced to take reserve charges for giant principal losses on the falling prices of its $4.5 billion portfolio of government and GSE bonds.

This post was published at David Stockmans Contra Corner on September 12, 2016.

Janet – – You’re Gonna Have Some ‘Splainin To Do!

For those who might not get the intended pun in the above title, it’s a play on words Ricky Ricardo (Desi Arnaz) would use when demanding his wife Lucy (Lucille Ball) as to explain whatever mischief or crisis she suddenly found herself in on the ‘I Love Lucy’ show. I think it fits the bill today as to describe just what type of ‘mischief’ or ‘crisis’ the now Chair of the Fed., Janet Yellen may now find herself painted into. The only issue that’s not laughable for the comparison is the fact that Lucy’s escapades were fictional. Ms. Yellen’s are going to be on public display in an all too real reality – although it might be quite the spectacle rivaling anything on current reality television.
As I’m typing this it has been less than 48 hours since presidential candidate Donald Trump gave a speech in Philadelphia calling for a vast expansion of the military. Already there are arguments across the media about ‘how to pay’ for such an expansion. As usual the main stream outlets are throwing ‘cold water’ all over such an idea. After all, it’s easy to say ‘We can’t afford it!’ Easy to say yes, but the problem is – the same outlets have praised how easily we could afford, and ‘can do more!’ to cure the ills of this current economic malaise via The Federal Reserve and its toolbox of monetary magic.
Now let me say this directly, and as forcefully as I can so that there is no misinterpretation of what I’m stating here: I am not endorsing one candidate or another. I’m not saying I agree or disagree with either’s positions or proposals. That is for you to decide. What I am stating is a factual based retort that has ramifications for all of us because regardless of who wins, the facts are the facts, and it will be from the next victor of the ‘bully pulpit’ that the current Fed. Chair will need to explain why she can – or – why she can’t do ‘X’ when it was they themselves who are the ones that showed the world how money ex nihlo truly works.

This post was published at David Stockmans Contra Corner by Mark St. Cyr ‘ September 8, 2016.

More Indications of Labor Slowing – -Yellen’s Favorite Index Hits The Skids

The Federal Reserve’s Labor Market Conditions Index (LMCI) fell to contraction again in August. After rebounding in July for the first positive reading of 2016, the LMCI dropped to -0.7 in the latest update. As usual, revisions have reshaped the levels of indicated problems throughout the past two years, but overall the trend remains. From this view of the labor market, the economy is surely slowing even if taking two years to suggest by how much.
As I wrote earlier today, I believe that is the natural tension between an economy that ‘wants’ to grow but can’t due to monetary suppression. This is nothing to do with quantitative easing or ‘stimulus’ in broad terms, except that it further shows that no form of central bank policies has had the effect of increasing the money supply to the real economy.
What Friedman actually meant, and what we can observe now, is that low interest rates indicate tight monetary conditions for the real economy. On that score there is no mystery about ‘tightness’ so much that even labor statistics and the seemingly impenetrable services economy are now openly displaying it. You look at the TED spread and see that ‘something’ changed in August last year; you look at the ISM Non-manufacturing PMI and sure enough, same thing. Where eurodollar decay had before cut a great deal off global economic growth (the depression), the ‘rising dollar’ variant of it seems to be that much worse in that it is pushing the real economy into active deceleration and contraction (some places already alarmingly deep).

This post was published at David Stockmans Contra Corner on September 7, 2016.

Between The Lines Of Yellen’s Speech – – Do You Really Need Us?

In case you need any assistance in trying to figure out when Janet Yellen spoke, or at least when the text of her speech was released from embargo, here is a hint:
It seems her stream of consciousness was somewhat consistent with the old Greenspan idea of ‘fedspeak.’ People and investors appear to have taken from it what they wished, with some commentary talking about its apparent ‘hawkishness’ before being overwhelmed by others claiming its clear ‘dovishness.’ I don’t think either of those terms apply, and certainly not in the fashion with which they are leveled by the continued conventions of mainstream perspective about monetary policy.
What I found in the speech is some good indication for what I wrote yesterday, though you as the reader should be equally suspicious about whether I am falling into that same fedspeak trap (as I so very much look forward to the day when nobody cares one bit what any Fed official or central banker has to say, and that day is coming).

This post was published at David Stockmans Contra Corner on August 29, 2016.