News

When the Fed starts cutting rates, it’s a pretty safe bet that a recession is on the way.

The Fed’s Federal Open Market Committee released the minutes to its December meeting yesterday, and the minutes further strengthen the view held by many Wall Street investors and observers that the Fed plans to implement rate cuts by the middle of 2024. Specifically, the most recent Fed survey of market participants “suggested that the first reduction in the policy rate would occur in June.” 

This contrasts only slightly with the FOMC members themselves, who, in their own internal survey (i.e., the Summary of Economic Projections,or SEP) overwhelmingly suggests a cut to the policy rate of at least 50 basis points this year. Or as the minutes put it: “almost all participants indicated that, reflecting the improvements in their inflation outlooks, their baseline projections implied that a lower target range for the federal funds rate would be appropriate by the end of 2024.”

This all gives the impression that the Fed is all set for imminent rate cuts. The Fed’s overall messaging, however, is designed to do anything but send a clear message. This phenomenon helps illustrate how ephemeral is Fed policy at any given time, and how political. The Fed’s muddled messaging, as we’ll see below, helps to illustrate how the Fed seeks to serve various political interests while also trying to avoid the political pitfalls of both high price inflation and economic stagnation. 

For example, one month before this most recent shift toward lowering the policy rate, Powell stressed that the committee had no plan at all for cutting the policy rate, telling reporters in November: 

The fact is the committee is not thinking about rate cuts right now at all. We’re not talking about rate cuts … We’re still very focused on the first question, which is ‘have we achieved a stance of monetary policy that’s sufficiently restrictive to bring inflation down to 2% over time, sustainably?’ That is the question we’re focusing on.

• Save 40% on DNA Force Plus NOW! Try it today and see why so many listeners have made it an essential part of their daily routine!

Of course, as of the December meeting, the price inflation rate had not returned to the arbitrary two-percent target that the Fed invented about 20 years ago. The early-December reading of the CPI (minus food and energy) was at 3.9 percent, nearly double the target rate. Moreover, employment has only slightly softened thanks to sticky effects of the huge monetary inflation that occurred during 2020 and 2021. Yet, to virtually no one’s surprise—and contrary to Powell’s earlier claims—the Fed pivoted to “talking about rate cuts” with the speed of lightning and without achieving its stated goals. 

Powell’s comments prompted a market rally as investors took Powell comments to mean a new round of easy money is in the works for 2024. This is almost certainly true, but the Fed personnel also simultaneously dialed back the easy-money talk. New York Fed president John Williams the next day announced “We aren’t really talking about rate cuts right now.”

That wasn’t the end of it, though. A day after Williams said rate cuts weren’t really on the table, the Chicago Fed’s Austan Goolsbee announced the Fed should start worrying about employment. As Goolsbee put it: “we’ve got to think about how restrictive do we want to be and are there dangers on the employment side of the mandate?” What he means is the Fed has worried about inflation long enough, and now it’s time to turn back to easy money to keep employment high. 

The Fed Is a Political Institution

How are we to interpret all these mixed messages? We certainly should not look at it all as if the Fed were filled with dispassionate scholars who merely go where the numbers take them. When Fed officials claim to be “data driven” they are either lying or kidding themselves. The Federal Reserve is not a market institution. It is a political one.  Powell and the FOMC are trying to play a complex political game of balancing expectations among certain constituent groups.

As Tho Bishop notes, the Fed in an election year will at the very least seek to avoid raising the target rate any further since that could trigger a recession quickly. The Fed wants to keep the administration happy—thus has it been for decades. Indeed, to this end, the Fed would prefer to cut the target rate immediately. But the Fed also fears public reaction to more price inflation—which a rate cut is likely to fuel. That means a mere “pause” on the target rate. 

The Fed wants it both ways, though, and one strategy it uses to pursue this is to repeatedly hint that rate cuts are on the horizon—without actually cutting the policy rate. After all, finance students are taught that investors calculate value in terms of expected future cash flows. So, if the Fed is out there suggesting that “rate cuts are coming”—as the FOMC’s SEP clearly suggests—this tells investors that easy-money-dependent cash flows will improve “soon.” What qualifies as “soon” is never quite defined ahead of time, but that doesn’t matter to the Fed as it plays the expectations game. 

This way, the Fed can hold the target rate steady out of fear of price inflation on the one hand. On the other hand, it can vaguely promise rate cuts at the first sign of real trouble. 

We can see this strategy in the FOMC December minutes which do little to make any hard pronouncements about rate cuts.  The minutes are more explicit, however, about whether the target policy rate will increase, and the document strongly suggests that the policy rate is “likely at or near its peak for this tightening cycle.” I have predicted this since the Fed “paused” at 5.5 percent last summer. It is very rare at the FOMC goes back to raising rates after pausing the rate for more than two months. 

Beware What Comes After Rate Cuts 

Wall Street and Biden administration officials will continue to push for cuts to the policy rate. Yet, in our current economic situation, neither Wall Street nor the White House should expect cuts to produce any economic miracles. As Daniel Lacalle writes “central banks may cut rates with no real effect on the productive economy and solve nothing. There may be a significant contraction in economic activity even if rates decline, as credit availability worsens even with declining rates, but markets keep inflating the financial bubble.” This happens when we’re in an economy in which the private economy outside the financial sector is in recession, but the aggregated economy doesn’t look so bad thanks to financial bubbles and government spending. In other words, Lacalle is telling us rate cuts right now would help Wall Street and Washington, but do little to help employment on Main Street. 

So when will the Fed cut rates again? The cuts will come when Powell, et al, fear recession more than inflation. If the Fed starts cutting rates aggressively, that means the Fed is very afraid. So, if Wall Street actually gets what it wants—a target-rate cut of, say, 75 basis points or more—that’s a signal that the Fed sees very bad news on the horizon. The Fed will never admit it sees trouble ahead. After all, then-chairman Bernanke insisted there was no recession ahead in 2008. You’ll know the Fed sees trouble when it starts cutting rates. 

We can see this play out in the lag between rate cuts and the onset of recessions. As the graph shows, rate cuts tend to begin several months before recessions become obvious: 

So, when the Fed starts cutting rates, it’s a pretty safe bet that a recession is on the way. Bigger rate cuts also tend to signal bigger problems. Before the public catches on, however, the Fed can get away with vague, muddled, and contradictory messages that given the impression the Fed is fine tuning a delicate economic instrument. In reality, the Fed is merely playing politics.

---

The NWO’s 2024 Black Swan Tell

---

Ramaswamy refuses to take bait, instead points out American people tired of media’s racial division and are hungry for truth.

An NBC News reporter had her work cut out for her as she attempted to corner Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy into a debate on race and white supremacy.

With an aide by her side, reporter Dasha Burns asked Ramaswamy why he didn’t acknowledge the 2015 Charleston church shooting committed by supposed white supremacist Dylann Roof.

“When you were talking to reporters last night, you called white supremacy a myth,” Burns told Ramaswamy. “When someone asked you about Dylann Roof, you said you didn’t know who that is. Have you looked up what happened in 2015?”

Ramaswamy refused to take the bait, instead pointing out how the WaPo reporter during the exchange in question had cherry picked the incident in order to frame her argument that there’s a real rise in white supremacy.

“Look, I’ve said this last night, invidious racial discrimination is wrong no matter how it happens. But if a Washington Post reporter is asking me, almost like a catechism, whatever question – I said, ‘I’m against invidious racial discrimination, whatever form it takes’ – but says, ‘Do you think we should denounce white supremacy?’ — it’s incumbent on us for us to define what ‘white supremacy’ is. I wrote my book, Woke, Inc., and I’ve written about the detailed understanding of what the popular understanding of these terms have come to mean.”

Getting heated, Burns proceeded to tell Ramaswamy he was giving a straw man argument with a previous mention of the Jussie Smollett hate crime hoax, which the presidential candidate explained was a microcosm of how the left suppresses negative racial news that doesn’t fit their narrative, while at the same time redefining terms like “nuclear family” and “white supremacy.”

The conversation then descended into an argument about FBI crime statistics, with Ramaswamy telling Burns to compare black on Asian crime, and black on black crime.

“There’s a table, two by two table, a federal law enforcement data, which you could say what you do, maybe we shouldn’t believe that either. But look at black on Asian crime, black on black crime.

“I think that when you actually care about protecting life, if you want to say, ‘Black lives matter,’ let’s look at where black lives are actually being lost. It’s in the cities at the heart of other black Americans and criminals,” he said before being cut off by Burns asking, “But are we supposed to ignore white supremacists, hate crimes?”

Vivek at this point took the opportunity to highlight the media’s selective reporting, especially in the case of the Nashville trans shooter, whose manifesto proving she was an unhinged leftist was purposely withheld from the public.

“We’re not supposed to ignore any kind of crime, Dasha. That’s what I say. But what I see is a selective reporting. Take the Nashville Transgender Shooter Manifesto. Every shooter manifesto in a mass shooting has been released within 48 hours, except for that one shooter in Nashville,” Ramaswamy told Burns.

“Now it ended up being leaked. What do you see? It wasn’t a white supremacist. It was somebody that was actually making fun of using derogatory terms.”

The former businessman went on to explain the left has kept America from achieving the color-blind future envisioned by civil rights leader Martin Luther King by continuing to create division on the basis of race and gender.

“I reject this left-wing narrative that’s creating more artificial division. So I believe I will bring more black and Hispanic voters into our movement, not by saying fake, poll-tested slogans, but by speaking the hard truth that we’ve been imperfect in our past, but let us celebrate the progress we’ve made and reject the media’s cherry-picking narratives to actually get to the truth of the matter. And now, if we care about black lives and the things we’re gonna do, isn’t obsessing about white supremacy, it’s actually fixing the problems in our cities, which I will do as our president.”

Elsewhere during the interview, Ramaswamy addressed so-called “conspiracy theories” he’s espoused on the campaign trail, including Jan. 6 being a fed-orchestrated event and the FBI’s fake Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping — in other words, events that are absolutely true things that actually happened.

Clearly the MSM reporter went in thinking she could outwit Ramaswamy, however his superior debate skills and extensive knowledge of the corporate mainstream media’s nefarious tactics, coupled with an acute understanding of the public’s thirst for truth, gave him a leg up.

---

---

The Oracle of Austin has a reputation of telling his audience what’s coming next, so heed his newest warnings about what the desperate Deep State has planned

Comedian and actor Russel Brand posted a new video Friday discussing remarks Infowars founder Alex Jones made during his latest interview with Tucker Carlson.

“OH SH*T, Alex Jones’s Newest Predictions Are TERRIFYING!” reads the headline of the YouTube video.

Brand examines the past predictions Jones accurately made and reflects on his most recent political forecasts.

The comedian also points out that mainstream media constantly attacks Jones because they’re terrified of the masses listening to his warnings.

See the full Tucker/Jones interview below:

---

Analytics bizarrely show thousands of viewers drop off during live podcast where Trump’s attorney discussed 2024 presidential election and efforts to suppress her client.

A recent episode of the PBD Podcast featuring former President Donald Trump’s attorney Alina Habba experienced bizarre glitches during the show’s livestream on YouTube, prompting speculation of election meddling by the Big Tech platform.

Show host Patrick Bet-David’s team attempted to alert YouTube of the issue via X, asking why they were noticing strange drops of viewer counts throughout the interview, which they had never witnessed before.

“LIVE has dropped multiple times today. It’s dropped from 21k to 11k multiple times within seconds and audience gets kicked off. What’s the issue?” Bet-David said in a post tagging YouTube.

PBD later posted a video displaying the show’s analytics, which depicted massive drops in audience numbers at various points throughout the show.

Producers also noted only two and a half minutes of the hour and forty minute-long podcast interview with Habba were initially available to viewers.

Show producers speculated one reason YouTube may have flagged the video could be due to changes made to its title and tags to include Jeffrey Epstein’s name, in accordance with the viral trending topic.

YouTube’s potential censorship of PBD’s episode could be construed as election interference as Habba discussed various topics surrounding the 2024 presidential election and efforts to suppress her client Donald Trump, the Republican presidential frontrunner.

PBD says he observed the same issue on Friday:

Here’s the full episode with Alina Habba via X:

The episode is currently still available on YouTube:

---

The globalists are increasing their attacks on Infowars and the stakes have never been higher!

Please consider donating and visit InfowarsStore.com for merch, nutraceuticals and survival gear.

---

Follow the author on X, Facebook, Gab, Minds, Truth Social and Gettr.

---

Establishment on the run as We The People continue exposing globalist criminal empire

Burisma Holdings, the Ukrainian gas company that paid Hunter Biden millions of dollars for access to the Obama White House, registered as a foreign agent on Thursday for its work back in 2016.

Burisma has also retained New York-based law firm Cravath, Swaine & Moore according to the government’s Foreign Agent Registration Act database.

The National Pulse‘s Natalie Winters posted screenshots of the filings on ? Friday.

“This proves once and for all Hunter Biden violated FARA,” she wrote. “The firm was trying to prevent an investigation from the Obama admin and got meetings with high-level appointees including key anti-Trump impeachment witness Marie Yovanovitch. Hunter Biden was engaged in the same exact work. Will he get raided like Rudy Giuliani?”

---

According to the filing, “In January 2016, Mr. Buretta [Burisma’s lawyer] was retained to represent Mykola Zlochevsky in connection with possible investigations by governmental authorities in the United States.”

“The representation thereafter broadened to include Burisma Holdings Limited, as well as governmental investigations in Ukraine, and continued until April 2017. The representation of Burisma was governed by the same engagement letter with Mykola Zlochevsky and included both registrable and non-registrable activities,” the document states.

This means Hunter Biden was not registered as a foreign agent while representing Burisma as it lobbied the Obama White House with Joe Biden as VP.

Of course, the Burisma drama was also the focus of the first Donald Trump impeachment as the Deep State tried to punish the 45th president for urging the Western puppet president of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate the firing of the Ukrainian prosecutor who was looking into Burisma-related corruption.

Biden even bragged on video about withholding a billion-dollar loan from Ukraine until they fired the prosecutor investigating the company paying Hunter.

The move comes soon after the House Judiciary Committee announced a vote to hold Hunter Biden in contempt on Wednesday for refusing to testify before Congress.

Stay tuned to Infowars for more updates on the investigations into the Biden crime family.

---

This is an urgent warning to those serving and planning to enlist!

Ivan Raiklin joins The Alex Jones Show to expose the Pentagon Plan to poison the US Military with deadly injections, weakening America’s defenses and making the country vulnerable to both domestic and outside threats.

---

Don’t forget, Infowars relies on YOUR SUPPORT! To continue funding this independent operation, we urge you to visit the Infowars Store where you can fund the battle against globalism by purchasing great products such as dietary supplements, air and water filters, books, t-shirts, survival gear and much more.

---