Viewpoints: 2025

Federal Reserve Governor Christopher J. Waller's speech, "The Case For Cutting Now," delivered at the Money Marketeers of New York University, was intriguing from both political and policy perspectives. His economic rationale for a formal rate reduction at the July 29-30 FOMC meeting was, at best, puzzling, and the timing appeared politically motivated. With the Fed's independence facing substantial pressure, it is crucial for those making monetary policy decisions to remain apolitical.

It is exceedingly uncommon for a Fed Governor to dissent at an FOMC meeting, as demonstrated by the fact that there have only been a few dissents by Fed Governors in the past decade or more. It is even rarer for the rationale behind a dissenting vote to be expressed and made public before the FOMC meeting.

Considering the political pressure aimed at Fed Chair Powell in recent days and weeks, it is worth considering if there was a political agenda influencing the timing and content of Mr. Waller's speech, particularly because he was named by the current administration as a candidate for the Fed Chair role. (On CNBC last week, Mr Waller stated, "If the President asked me to do the Fed chair job, I would say yes.")

Mr. Waller's rationale for a rate cut at this time is questionable, even when political factors are set aside. For instance, Mr. Waller asserts, "tariffs are one-off increases in the price level and do not cause inflation beyond a temporary spike." Yet, he offers no evidence to support this claim.

Mr. Waller's assertion regarding tariffs being a one-time impact on inflation might hold some truth if the tariffs implemented by the Trump administration were consistent, even, and applied simultaneously. However, the tariff policy is erratic and uneven, with some of the largest increases affecting essential materials like steel, aluminum, and copper, which will continually elevate production costs and price pressures in the US.

However, Mr. Waller states that even if tariffs have a greater effect on inflation, it will not alter or affect his perspective on the implications for monetary policy. Why? Mr. Waller contends that, despite recent increases in individual price expectation surveys, there is no evidence of an "unanchoring of inflation expectations." He considers surveys of people's inflation expectations, which have shown a significant jump in recent months, two or three times above the Fed's 2% inflation target, to be "unreliable." Rather, he relies more on those who predict inflation expectations in the financial markets. In other words, he trusts individuals who wager on future inflation rather than those who deal with it daily.

Mr. Waller cites labor market trends as a reason to lower rates now, stating that "private sector job gains are near stall speed and flashing red." However, he overlooks that the Fed's labor market mandate focuses on the unemployment rate, not private sector jobs, which, at 4.1%, is below the Fed's long-term target. He mentioned that a significant slowdown in "net immigration" might be contributing to the sluggish growth in private sector jobs, but acknowledged that understanding its impact on employment will take time.

Additionally, Mr. Waller does not address how "uncertainty" over tariff policy is affecting hiring decisions, despite it being a common theme in the Fed's July Beige Book report.

Nevertheless, Mr. Waller is willing to wait and see how immigration affects the labor markets, but is not prepared to wait to evaluate the impact of Trump's tariff policy on current and future inflation.

Mr. Waller has only one vote at the FOMC, but his vote could be very "LOUD" because the Administration is likely to use it as an additional tool to influence Fed policy. Federal Reserve independence can only be preserved if those responsible for implementing monetary policy decisions avoid political involvement.

In Samuel Becket’s renowned play, Vladimir and Estragon wait for Godot, who never arrives. It’s like waiting for the inflation impact of recent tariff increases…or is it?

On April 2, “liberation day,” the Trump Administration announced a baseline 10% tariff on most imported goods and additional “reciprocal” tariffs, quickly delayed until August, on select countries. This was on top pf other new tariffs on vehicles, parts, steel, aluminum, and other select commodities. I estimate that by June these initiatives increased the import-weighted average of tariff rates on goods - call it the “statutory” tariff rate - by 17.5 percentage points, to 20%. At May’s volume of imports, that implies an increase in the “run rate” of customs duties of nearly $600 billion at an annual rate, a staggering rise. If passed fully forward, it would lift the aggregate price level by roughly 1.7%. Yet so far, despite economists’ warnings, any impact on inflation has been difficult to discern. Why?

One reason is that imports temporarily surged early this year as importers rushed to beat the anticipated increase in tariffs (Chart 1). Until the resulting excess stocks are worked down, merchants can postpone selling goods subject to the new tariffs, delaying price pressures arising from the recent increases. But is there even more to it than that?

State labor markets were very little-changed to soft in June. Alaska reported a statistically significant increase in jobs (3,100, or .9 percent) while there was no statistically significant change anywhere else. However, many states reported declines, and the sum of job changes among the states was only 3,100, compared to the national increase of 147,000. No state reported a statistically significant change in jobs. The unemployment rate fell a significant .2 percentage points in Illinois, and one percentage point in Maine, while increasing .1 percentage point in Virginia. The highest unemployment rates were in DC (5.9%), Nevada (5.4%), California (5.4%), and Michigan (5.3%),and Kentucky (5.0%), though Kentucky’s rate is not deemed statistically different than the national average of 4.2%. Hawaii, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Vermont had unemployment rates under 3.0%, while South Dakota’s 1.8% was yet again the lowest in the nation.

Puerto Rico’s unemployment rate was unchanged at 5.5% and the island’s job count edged down by 800.

The Federal Reserve currently is involved in one of its periodic navel-gazing exercises to try to improve its monetary-policy procedures. Most likely this introspection will involve issues such as identifying the level of the “neutral” federal funds interest rate, the lags between a change in the federal funds rate and the cumulative effect on the inflation rate and the unemployment rate, how to move the federal funds rate in periods of heightened uncertainty and how to more effectively communicate with the public on monetary-policy issues. But, it is doubtful that the Fed will contemplate abandoning the federal funds rate as its primary policy tool. In what follows, I am going to propose that a lot of the Fed’s monetary-policy conundrums could be solved by targeting a monetary quantity, rather than an interest rate. The monetary quantity I would propose the Fed target and hit is the sum of the monetary base (which is the sum of cash reserves of depository institutions plus currency in circulation) plus the loans and securities held by depository institutions (commercial banks, savings and loans and credit unions). I have called this monetary quantity thin-air credit because it is credit that is created, figuratively, out of thin-air. In what follows, I will present a theoretical argument for proposing thin-air credit as the Fed’s operating tool as well as empirical evidence for supporting thin-air credit. I will argue that targeting and hitting a steady rate of growth in thin-air credit in periods of exogenous shocks to the economy, such as pandemics, tariffs, etc., will prevent the Fed from making policy moves that will exacerbate the effects of these exogenous shocks on the economy. The proposal that the Fed target a monetary quantity rather than an interest rate was popularized by Professor Milton Friedman. The only difference between my proposal and Friedman’s is that the monetary quantity I prefer is thin-air credit rather than some money supply definition.

What does it mean that the sum of the monetary base and the loans and securities of depository institutions are created “out of thin air”? When the Fed purchases securities in the open market, from where do the funds come that the sellers of these securities to the Fed receive? They come from bookkeeping entries on the Fed’s balance sheet. On the asset side of the Fed’s balance sheet, “securities held” increase by the amount of securities purchased by the Fed in the open market. On the liabilities side of the Fed’s balance sheet, “deposits of depository institutions” increase by the same amount. These deposits of depository institutions are also referred to as reserves held by depository institutions at the Fed. These reserves were created by nothing other than Fed balance-sheet entries. On the balance sheet of the depository-institution system, the asset item “reserves held at the Fed” increase by the amount of the securities purchased by the Fed and the liabilities item “deposits” increase by the same amount. Again, nothing but bookkeeping entries. The sellers of the securities to the Fed now have deposits that they can use to purchase goods, services and/or assets. Moreover, the depository-institution system has additional funds that can be used to make additional loans and/or purchase additional securities. The recipients of these additional loans issued by depository institutions are able to purchase goods, services and/or assets. Because depository institutions desire to hold only a proportion of their assets as reserves, the depository-institution system is able to increase its holdings of loans and securities by some multiple in excess of the reserves created by the Fed. This enables the recipients of funds from increased depository institutions loans and securities to purchase goods, services and/or assets without any other entity needing to reduce its current purchases of goods, services and/or assets. It is as though the Federal Reserve and the depository-institution system are legal counterfeiters. They can create additional credit, not with a literal printing press, but by bookkeeping entries. The Fed and the depository-institution system are able to create credit, figuratively, out of thin air.

Now, let’s rewind the tape. Instead of the Fed purchasing securities in the open market, assume that the purchaser of securities was some entity other than the Fed or the depository institution system. From where did this entity get the funds to purchase the securities? This entity might reduce its current spending on goods, services and/or assets by the amount of its purchase of these securities. This is often referred to as an increase in saving. In this case, the seller of securities can purchase goods, services and/or assets. But the buyer of these securities is reducing its purchases of goods, services and/or other assets. In this case, the purchaser of securities is transferring purchasing power to the seller of securities. Under these circumstances no net increase in the purchases of goods, services and/or assets occurs. In contrast, the sale of securities to the Fed set in motion a series of bookkeeping entries that did result in a net increase in the purchases of goods, services and/or assets. To a borrower, it makes no difference whether the lender is the Fed or a depository institution. But to the borrowers’ effect on the aggregate economy, it makes all the difference in the world whether or not the lender was the Fed and/or the depository institution system.

The Fed’s so-called dual mandate is to promote low unemployment and low inflation. Real GDP growth is related to the unemployment rate. All else the same, if real economic growth is close to its potential, which is a function of available productive resources and the productivity of those resources, a low unemployment rate would likely result. In the past 70 years, the compound rate of growth in real GDP has been 3.03%. In the past 70 years, the compound rate of growth in the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of real potential GDP has been 2.99%. So, let’s say that growth in real GDP of 3% would come close to generating an acceptably low unemployment rate. For reasons unknown to me, the conventional wisdom is that the consumer inflation rate ought to be around 2% annualized. In the past 70 years, the compound annualized rate of growth in both the GDP and Personal Consumption chain prices indices has been 3.2% on a rounded basis. What I am suggesting is that if the Fed could conduct policy such that the growth rate in nominal GDP were around 5% (3% real and 2% GDP price inflation), the Fed would come close to meeting its dual mandate of low unemployment and low inflation.

If only there were some monetary quantity whose behavior would be relatively highly correlated with the behavior of nominal GDP. Oh wait, there is. It is the sum of the monetary base plus depository institutions’ holdings of loans and securities, i.e., thin-air credit. Plotted in Chart 1 are the year-over-year percent changes in annual averages of nominal thin-air credit (blue bars) and nominal GDP (red line) starting in 1955 and ending in 2019. That “r = 0.65” in the upper left-hand corner of the chart is the correlation coefficient between the two series. If the two series were perfectly correlated, the absolute value of the correlation coefficient would be 1.0. Because there is an implicit “+” sign in front of the 0.65 correlation coefficient, it means that when thin-air credit growth increases, nominal GDP growth also increases and vice versa. An absolute value of 0.65 for a correlation coefficient is not bad for government work. Why did I truncate the series to 2019 rather than 2024? Because the correlation coefficient is higher for the truncated period. How’s that for honesty? My deceased friend and former colleague, Robert “Bob” Laurent, remarked that I was the most honest economist he had ever encountered. NOT the BEST, but the most honest. The correlation coefficient drops to 0.45 when the years 2020 through 2024 are included. This is because of the record growth and near-record growth in nominal thin-air credit in 2020 and 2021 and the unusual contraction in nominal GDP in 2020. All of this was due to the once-in-a-century (I hope) pandemic and the Fed’s errant response to it.

Is the US economy on the verge of entering a new phase of "American Exceptionalism," or is it approaching the edge of another financial crisis?These two perspectives represent the extreme ends of potential outcomes. Certainly, the economic outlook for 2025 is not grounded in strong fundamentals, as it was in 1995 when America embarked on a long period of "exceptionalism." However, there are some parallels to 2005 (excessive risk-taking and borrowing) that culminated in a significant financial crisis.

Between 1995 and 1999, over a span of five years, the US experienced an average real GDP growth of 4% per year, a feat unmatched since the 1960s. However, even more remarkable than this growth performance was the fact that America settled its "current bills," concluding that period with a balanced budget, and didn't pass legislation that increased future deficits.

In 2025, the US is experiencing minimal growth and facing a budget deficit projected at $2 trillion, suggesting it is not covering its "current bills." Furthermore, Congress's passage of the "Big Beautiful Bill" (BBB) adds an additional $4 trillion over the upcoming decade, leading to an anticipated cumulative annual deficit nearing $25 trillion for the next ten years, as reported by the Congressional Budget Office. When it comes to federal borrowing, 2025 is fundamentally different from 1995 and the years that followed.

However, 2025 resembles 2005. In 2005, American households borrowed trillions to purchase primary and secondary homes and took out additional home equity loans to fund their spending. Likewise, in 2025, the US government is borrowing unprecedented amounts, not only for the present year but also increasingly for the next decade, to maintain and support the economy's growth trajectory.

As house prices declined, the excessive risk-taking and leverage by households resulted in a series of adverse effects on the financial markets and the economy. While the federal government has more borrowing options and capacity compared to the private sector, it is not limitless.

In 2009, Kevin Hassett, who is the White House Director of the National Economic Council, co-authored an article titled "The Deficit Endgame" for the American Enterprise Institute. In this article, the authors noted "countries most at risk of defaulting on their government debts were those heavily dependent on foreign capital flows to finance their government deficits." The authors also that high levels of domestic debt could and have led to defaults.

The US fits both of these descriptions; it is heavily reliant on foreign capital and operates with a current debt-to-GDP ratio well above the thresholds that have led to previous sovereign defaults in other countries.

Financial markets currently perceive a very small risk of the US entering the "default bucket," unlike with other countries with a similar debt profile. However, the potential for another credit downgrade might change this view or at least raise funding costs. In April, S&P Global Ratings, mentioned that "the outcome of forthcoming fiscal negotiations...will be a key factor in our assessment of the US fiscal profile." The approval of "BBB" by Congress represents "fiscal expansion" as opposed to the "fiscal consolidation" typically preferred by credit ratings, which increases the likelihood of a credit downgrade.

Two decades ago, the notion that home prices might fall was unimaginable for households, as a nationwide decline had never happened, nor did they anticipate challenges in refinancing their debt. Similarly, it's difficult to envision the US government being unable to roll over its debt. However, this scenario can occur at any time, often triggered by factors like the financially reckless 'Big Beautiful Bill'.

This is extremely embarrassing and a deceptive act by the WSJ editorial team. The current budget baseline relies on what is explicitly stated in the tax code, not on assumptions. According to the existing tax law, individual tax rates are set to return to pre-2017 levels in 2026. That is a fact. Where is written that "Congress was never going to allow" individual tax rates to revert back to pre 2017?

If the "Big Beautiful Bill" (BBB) is projected to save $500 billion over the next ten years, as stated by the WSJ editorial team, then why does the BBB include a provision to raise the debt ceiling by $5 trillion? The WSJ editorial team, similar to members of Congress, is currently engaged in using deceptive "budget math".

However, this will not fool global investors or credit rating agencies, who will soon confront a US debt approaching $50 trillion.

The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia’s state coincident indexes in May were generally lackluster. In the one-month changes, Kentucky’s index did rise a reasonably hefty .71 percent, and Indiana, Idaho, New York, and South Carolina had increases above .5 percent. In contrast, 10 states saw declines. These were spread across the nation, with Massachusetts down .52 percent. Over the three months ending in May seven states were down, with Massachusetts on the bottom (down 1.0 percent) here as well. Indiana’s 1.71 percent was the largest gain, while 6 other states had increases above 1 percent. Over the last twelve months, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Iowa were down, and seven others saw increases of less than one percent. No state had an increase higher than four percent (Idaho was up 3.62 percent), and only four were at or higher than three percent.

The independently estimated national estimates of growth over the last three and twelve months were, respectively, .62 and 2.40 percent. Both measures appear to be a bit weaker than the state numbers would have suggested.

State real GDP growth rates in 2025:1 were weak, ranging from -6.1% in Iowa and Nebraska to 1.7% in South Carolina. Farm output is estimated to have dropped sharply in the nation’s midsection, which explains very weak numbers in the Plains (in reality, of course, excluding seasonal adjustment, farm output is minimal in that section in the winter and estimates are problematic). Other areas were soft, most notably the Pacific Coast and the Northeast (a pronounced drop in financial output weighed heavily in New York, for instance). It is, of course, a bit hard to blame losses in output in Plains state agriculture on the surge in imports, which adds further to the puzzle of understanding the national GDP decline.

Personal income was stronger with growth rates ranging from Washington’s 3.2% to North Dakota’s 12.7%. In this case, the Plains states were the leaders, greatly aided by higher federal payments to farmers. Increases in transfer payments were unusually rapid, in part reflecting the annual Social Security COLA, as well as ACA tax credits.