The number one issue on voter's minds in this election year is immigration. That may come as a surprise to some, but it makes a lot of sense if one believes that we have entered a period of populism.

 

Sixty-two percent of registered voters nationwide support a program to "deport all undocumented immigrants," according to a CBS News poll over the weekend. On June 3, 2024, President Biden signed an executive order that would ban migrants who cross the southern border illegally from claiming asylum to defuse this election issue. Faith-based charities, like Catholic Charities, which have a long history of providing shelter, food, and clothing to migrant families are targeted by anti-immigration activists. What has all this immigration anger have to do with American populism?

 

By now readers should be aware (if you have been reading my last three columns) that over the last 40 years middle- and lower-income Americans have seen their livelihoods dwindle because of government policies that favored a top-down approach to economic growth and fiscal spending. The flow of money from both the Federal Reserve Bank and the trillions of dollars in government spending has largely found its way overseas in a variety of forms. "Go forth and conquer the world" was the mantra our nation's leaders espoused pointing to the benefits of international free trade.

 

Every effort was made to encourage, expand, and at times, protect our overseas markets. Think of government contractors across a wide spectrum of U.S. industries importing goods and services from cheap overseas companies or their foreign subsidiaries. I have already written about the long-term trend by U.S. corporations to invest in plants and equipment in various countries.

 

U.S. companies have routinely imported basic materials from around the world to build our outdated infrastructure and still do. We must also add in the trillions of dollars in U.S. funding of dozens of foreign governments, while also supporting our troops in various conflicts abroad over the last couple of decades.

 

Here at home, as good-paying jobs disappeared, many younger Americans found that even their high-priced college educations might only qualify them for a minimum-wage job at a fast-food restaurant. Unlike in past generations, where only one spouse needed to work, now two were necessary, and even then it was not always enough to put bread on the table. Many jobs don't even cover child-care expenses.

 

Back in the day, they called America "the Sleeping Giant." Given the trends, it was only a matter of time before a large portion of the country woke up and asked the obvious question.

 

 "What about me?"

 

It is not the first time in our history we have asked that question. There have been many populist periods where economic or political dissatisfaction has translated into protests of immigrants and foreign influences in the form of protectionism. Protectionism is a policy of restricting imports from other countries through tariffs on imported goods, and quotas. and a variety of other government regulations that restrict the free flow of goods and services between countries.

 

Back in the 1930s, for example, during the Great Depression, as millions of workers lost their jobs, and populism surfaced, higher trade barriers were put in place. Those tariffs not only exacerbated the severity of the downturn but also worked to choke off any recovery.

 

 

 

This latest period of populism/protectionism found its voice through the ideas of MAGA. The Trump administration built walls along the Mexican border, levied tariffs on China and other countries, threatened to pull out of NATO, and provided a steady stream of anti-foreign rhetoric that was music to the ears of many Americans.

 

But like the 1930s, none of these policies worked. It only led to dislocation, losses for American farmers and other workers, and higher prices for consumers. Nonetheless, many Americans not only applauded these efforts but also supported even higher tariffs and more restrictions and deportations of immigrants.

 

The connection between protectionism and immigration is straightforward. Barriers to admitting immigrants are simply a tariff on another type of imported good and service that is entering the country — labor, both legal and illegal. The difference is that, unlike a tariff on Chinese semiconductors, an immigrant is someone who can be identified as such and is far easier to vilify. Immigrants become the embodiment of all that is wrong with globalization.

 

Making matters worse, thanks to COVID-19 and the failed economic policies and shortcomings of some governments, the refugees' rush to flee to the freedom and economic promise of the U.S. became irresistible. As such, we are assaulted through the news media with the spectacle of huge waves of immigrants at our borders, climbing fences, wading rivers, and dying in deserts. Unfortunately, they are also a visual reminder to all those generational Americans who have been left out of that economic promise, who see them only as a danger to our society and to job security.

 

Only now, thanks to the match lit by Donald Trump's oratory over the past several years, have politicians and corporations, begun to realize that the 40-year top-down, globalization trends that benefited a small segment of society have run into a brick wall of anger, resentment, and demand for change — or else.

 

Those who read my two-part column on immigration in March "Immigrants are getting a bad rap on the economic front," understand that immigrants have contributed far more than they have taken from the U.S. economy in recent years. In fact, throughout our history that has proven to be true.

 

But facts have never carried much weight in a season of discontent. As many who have tried reason in the face of conspiracy theories know, spouting facts in the face of this populist sentiment is a useless endeavor. 

 

The U.S. is not alone in using immigration as the favored whipping boy in an era of populism. In European elections last week, France, Germany, Spain, and Italy saw large advances by political parties that oppose immigration. The trend toward protectionism and de-globalization is gathering steam in Asia and Latin America as well.  Next week, I will examine similar times in our past when populism flourished. How long these regime changes normally last, what lessons we have learned, and why the coming crisis period we will encounter could usher in a change for the better over time.    

The Federal Reserve Bank's smoothing of the business cycle, which started in the 1990s, was meant to ensure price stability and the health of the labor market. It's top-down policies of reducing interest rates through the banking system and into the hands of the largest corporations was meant to benefit the whole economy.

 

The problem is that corporations and the minority of Americans that control them are not the whole economy. What did that matter, argued supply-side economists. This group, who championed Reaganomics in the 1980s and beyond, assured us that the benefits of the Federal Reserve Bank's policies would ‘trickle-down' throughout the entirety of U.S. society over time. They said the same thing about corporate tax cuts. Those assurances never materialized. Why? Times had changed, and neither the government nor the Fed realized their mistake.

 

As profit-seeking organizations, corporations do not seek to be fair, equitable, or distribute justice. They ignore that side of the pendulum swing (as they should). Corporations simply seek to reduce costs and expand revenues. If they are good at doing so, more and more profits are generated for themselves and their shareholders.

 

In the 1990s, and especially after the turn of this century, U.S. companies and their owners realized that by investing overseas where labor and taxes were much lower, they could reduce costs, widen profitability, and open new markets for their products. As a bonus, it could also help them to compete in an increasingly global marketplace with larger and larger companies.

 

In the ensuing years, U.S. jobs and industries were exported overseas leaving entire regional industries rusting into decay. It also drastically reduced the size of the great American middle class, which had acted as a buffer between the haves and have-nots within society. It also made any semblance of 'trickle-down' economics a sad joke. There was nothing fair or equitable about this trend and yet our politicians applauded the outcome. We were winning the market share war in China. And all it cost was money and giving them our greatest corporate trade and technology secrets.  After all, both parties' politicians reasoned, who doesn't want cheaper T-shirts (for those who could buy them) at Walmart?

 

In my Nov. 8, 2012, column "The Incredibly Shrinking Middle Classhttps://tinyl.io/Av8y" I wrote "Last month the Census Bureau found that the highest-earning 20 percent of households earned 51.1 percent of all income last year. That is the biggest share on record since 1967. The share earned by middle-income households fell to 14.3 percent, a record low. From 1979 to 2007, the incomes of the richest one percent of Americans soared 275 percent. That same 1 percent earned 23.5 percent of all income, the largest share since 1928. At that rate, the rich are 288 times richer than you the middle class."

 

At the same time, with the additional corporate profits rolling in, company managements invested in technology, especially labor-saving technology, that further reduced the need for human capital.  Companies got bigger, owners became billionaires, the stock market boomed, and those with enough money to invest (mostly Baby Boomers), were paid off in escalating stock prices, buybacks, and extra dividends. As for the bottom half of society, "Let them eat cake."

 

Today, income inequality is a worldwide phenomenon where the richest one percent own half the world's wealth, while the poorest half of the world own just 0.75 percent. Here at home, the bottom segment of American society has been suffering through the worst period of income inequality in American history, far higher than during America's colonial period.

 

In a column I wrote entitled "The Next Third World Nation" back in 2010, I asked this question, "What do Cote d'Ivoire, Uruguay and the United States have in common? Answer: all three nations have about the same level of income inequality. America now ranks lowest of all developed nations in terms of its income distribution." It has declined further over the ensuing 14 years.

 

It is no coincidence that the rise in populism here in the U.S. began about the same time. There was a gathering sense that the real people in this country were under attack by money-grubbing elites, many of whom were thought to be liberal or represent liberal-minded institutions. Movements such as Occupy Wall Street and the Republican Tea Party were early warning signs of the discontent that has now bubbled over among many Americans in the form of today's populism. 

 

Unfortunately, the same trickle-down mentality and government policies that created this inequality continue today. Trump, if elected, offers tax cuts for the wealthy. Biden is funneling billions into corporations as you read this.

 

Who suffers the most from the Fed's higher interest rate policies? The credit card holders, the family purchasing a used car, the first-time home buyer; that's who. Ask yourself who benefited the most from the trillions of dollars in spending over the last decade under the last two administrations. 

 

In my next column, I will tackle the issue of protectionism, which I believe is the cousin of today's populism, as well as the similarities and differences between the crisis we will face over the next decade and those of similar times in our nation's past. 

 

Bill Schmick is the founding partner of Onota Partners, Inc., in the Berkshires. His forecasts and opinions are purely his own and do not necessarily represent the views of Onota Partners Inc. (OPI). None of his commentary is or should be considered investment advice. Direct your inquiries to Bill at 1-413-347-2401 or email him at bill@schmicksretiredinvestor.com.

This week, bond yields across the board rose on the back of several disappointing U.S. Treasury bond auctions. However, the Fed's key inflation index, the PCE, for last month came in a touch cooler. It helped, but not enough to keep stocks in the green for the week.

 

Three bond auctions this week met with tepid interest from buyers sending bond yields to their highest levels in over a month. The scorecard on government debt sales was 0 for three as two-, five-, and seven-year notes worth a total of $183 billion faced a chilly reception from bond investors worldwide. Who can blame them?

 

As the months pass, the U.S. debt level continues to rise. All most investors can see is a long road ahead of billions of dollars in Treasury bond auctions. The fundraising is necessary to fund the government's multi-trillion dollar spending programs.

 

 U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has purposely confined most of the country's need for financing to shorter maturities, rather than auctioning 10- and 20-year bonds.

 

There is a method to that madness since selling billions of dollars in longer-duration bonds would jack up yields and might send the benchmark, U.S. Ten-Year bond above 5 percent from its current yield of 4.50 percent. She knows that would surely pressure equities lower. In an election year, a sitting president would not be happy to see a sinking stock market when he is already in a tight race to regain the White House.

 

And while yields climb, the Fed's policymakers continue to warn the markets that there is not enough inflation progress to warrant a cut in interest rates just yet. However, they continue to assure us that sometime down the road a cut is possible. Some members, like Minneapolis Fed President Neil Kashkari, have gone the other way and suggest that a rate hike is still entirely possible. That leaves investors in limbo.

 

The economic data is not helping either. First quarter of 2024 Gross Domestic Product was revised downward from the already weak growth rate of 1.6 percent to 1.3 percent. Over in the housing market, pending U. S home sales fell much more than expected. Month-over-month decline was minus-7.7 percent versus minus-3.6 percent expected. The shortfall in sales was blamed on the escalating rise in mortgage interest rate loans in April.

 

That data was bound to set tongues wagging as more traders worry about a possible stagflation scenario. They argue that rather than revisiting the 1970s era of full-blown stagflation, a milder version of the same may be in the offing.

 

Readers may recall that the 1970s was a period with both high inflation and uneven economic growth. High budget deficits, lower interest rates, the OPEC oil embargo, and the collapse of managed currency rates were the hallmarks of that period. Not all those conditions are present today. However, some argue that history does not need to repeat itself, but only to rhyme.

 

The Personal Consumer Expenditure Index (PCE) did come in a touch lower than expected. The core PCE, which strips out the cost of food and energy, rose 0.2 percent in April, which was in line with Wall Street's expectations but lower than the 0.3 percent increase seen in March. 

 

Last week, I warned readers that we would see some profit-taking. The S&P 500 Index fell almost 100 points from 5,304 to 5,214 as of Friday morning. This summer, I expect that we will be entering a period of consolidation. I don't see the averages making much headway until the end of August. It won't be all downhill. We could see bounces as markets get oversold, but it will be difficult to achieve new highs.

 

Bill Schmick is the founding partner of Onota Partners, Inc., in the Berkshires. His forecasts and opinions are purely his own and do not necessarily represent the views of Onota Partners Inc. (OPI). None of his commentary is or should be considered investment advice. Direct your inquiries to Bill at 1-413-347-2401 or email him at bill@schmicksretiredinvestor.com.

The Federal Reserve Bank is the most powerful central bank in the world. It has a long history of successes and at times, failures in steering the U.S. economy through ups and downs. This is a story of how a well-intentioned policy has resulted in one of the worst disasters in American history.

 

After the stock market crash on Oct. 19, 1987, just two months after Alan Greenspan assumed the chairmanship of the Federal Reserve bank, he fired off a one-sentence statement before the start of trading on Oct. 20, "The Federal Reserve, consistent with its responsibilities as the nation's central bank, affirmed today its readiness to serve as a source of liquidity to support the economic and financial system." It was enough to turn markets around and kick off an economic expansion that lasted for 10 years.

 

The Fed soon realized that it might be able to smooth out the bumps in the business cycle and the economy by using monetary policy. They tried and succeeded in doing so in the early 1990s to combat a credit crunch, a Russian default on government securities, and the overheating of the U.S. labor market in 1994. As a result, the decade was marked by generally declining inflation and the longest peacetime economic expansion in our nation's history.

 

How exactly does the Fed work its magic? Think of monetary policy as a money spigot. When the Fed believes the economy is going to enter a slow patch, it turns on the money spigot. It turns the spigot off when it fears the economy is overheating, which could cause inflation. Simple, right?

 

It was a wonderful discovery. The government, through the Fed's actions and its fiscal spending, could minimize unemployment and ensure price stability by controlling the money supply if the dollar maintained its status as the world's preeminent currency.

 

However, money is distributed into the economy in a certain way — through the banking system in the form of lower interest rates. Interest rates are the cost of money when borrowed. The lower the rate, the cheaper the money. Banks offer loans to borrowers and these loans flow from the top down. Therein lies the problem.

 

Take a guess who gets to borrow the lion's share of this easy money?

 

Corporations, of course, are followed by the wealthy who own them. Corporations are profit-seeking entities that use capital most efficiently. The biggest, most profitable companies get to borrow the most at the lowest rates. The same top-down mentality pervades our fiscal policy efforts. Who, for example, will receive the $90 billion in new spending for Ukraine? It will not be soldiers on the front line. It will be defense companies, arms suppliers, munition distributors, etc.

 

From the government's and the Fed's point of view, this is the most efficient means available to inject monetary stimulus into the economy. The Fed also realized that with their top-down efficient capital approach, monetary loosening was not by itself inflationary. 

 

Remember last week's column concerning a swinging pendulum where on one side sits winner-takes-all capitalism versus fairness, equality, justice, and equity on the other. In this top-down situation, what happens to those who are at the bottom of the borrowing chain? Is this fair, and if so, how do they benefit?

 

Well, that is where trickle-down Reaganomics is supposed to come in. Corporations and other wealthy borrowers, according to supply-side economists, would invest in new plants and equipment, which would bring new jobs and higher pay to the masses. Economists used the same arguments for tax cuts as well. It may have worked in the 1980s, although many have their doubts, but it didn't work in the 1990s, or any time since then. Why?

 

Next week, I answer that question and give readers an understanding of how a swing in the country's economic pendulum isolated and decimated the lower and middle classes of this country.

 

Bill Schmick is the founding partner of Onota Partners, Inc., in the Berkshires. His forecasts and opinions are purely his own and do not necessarily represent the views of Onota Partners Inc. (OPI). None of his commentary is or should be considered investment advice. Direct your inquiries to Bill at 1-413-347-2401 or email him at bill@schmicksretiredinvestor.com.

It had to happen at some point. Gold, silver, and copper prices experienced a steep downturn this week. Profit-taking set in as traders rung the cash register after weeks of gains. However, tech got a boost from Nvidia's earnings.

 

And while tech took the lead, keeping the S&P 500 and NASDAQ up, the rest of the market did not fare as well. The strength in the economy and the early estimates of the Purchasing Managers Index called the flash PMI, indicated that prices were still increasing. The publication of the Federal Open Market Committee notes from the last Fed meeting on Wednesday didn't help.

 

Here's what the Fed members wrote: "Participants observed that while inflation had eased over the past year, in recent months there had been a lack of further progress toward the Committee's 2 percent objective."

 

That was no surprise to the markets given that all week the members of that committee were giving interviews and making speeches arguing the same "higher for the longer" theme. What was new and concerned investors was this: "Various participants mentioned a willingness to tighten policy further should risks to inflation materialize in a way that such action became appropriate."

 

It was the first mention this year by the Fed that an interest rate hike might be on the table. That set investors back on their heels. Higher interest rates are like kryptonite to the markets and especially to commodities such as gold, silver, and copper. It would call into question the gold bull's narrative that we have entered a super cycle for commodities

 

But commodities weren't the only area of the markets that saw declines. China stocks, which have had a similar period of outperformance, succumbed to the same kind of selling. Overbought conditions gave traders here and in mainland China the excuse to take profits.

 

What I found interesting is that several large-cap Chinese companies that are also traded in the U.S., reported amazing earnings and sales. PDD, the parent company of Tumu (a Chinese rival of Amazon here and abroad), for example, announced revenues and earnings that were double the estimates of analysts. Trip.com. Group (travel), Bilibili, (social media), and NetEase (online gaming) are some other companies that had great earnings as well. Yet, their stock prices fell in this downturn.

 

As for the U.S. equity and bond markets, investors had pinned their hopes on the earnings announcement of Nvidia, the number one player in the artificial intelligence space. AI has supported stock prices all year and AI plays have expanded to many areas of the market from utilities to grocery stores.

 

Fortunately, the company delivered better-than-expected earnings, sales, and guidance for the third time in a row. It also announced a 10-to-1 stock split in which shareholders will receive 10 shares for every share of the company they own as of June 7.

 

The good news sent the price of Nvidia up more than 11 percent on Thursday and took the stock market up with it at first, but while Nvidia stayed strong, the averages gave back most of those gains by Thursday's close.

 

Last week, I wrote "I could see 5,340 on the S&P 500 Index," we did reach a new intraday high, of 5,341 on the S&P 500 Index and 16,996.39 on the NASDAQ. However, I also warned that "I expect to see a couple of days of profit-taking, especially in those areas that have seen outsized gains. That would be ideal, reduce overbought conditions and set up for another ramp higher in June."

 

The pullback in commodities and China stocks this week certainly qualifies as a pullback but one that I would buy. As for U.S. markets, I suspect next week we might see some minor profit-taking earlier in the week as traders eye next Friday's Personal Consumption Expenditures Index. The PCE is the Fed's No. 1 inflation indicator. If you are bullish on the stock market, you don't want to see an increase in that data point.

 

I wish all my readers a long weekend but do take the time to remember what the Memorial Day holiday is about. I know I will be remembering my fellow Marines who were left behind in the jungles of Vietnam. Semper Fi! 

 

Bill Schmick is the founding partner of Onota Partners, Inc., in the Berkshires. His forecasts and opinions are purely his own and do not necessarily represent the views of Onota Partners Inc. (OPI). None of his commentary is or should be considered investment advice. Direct your inquiries to Bill at 1-413-347-2401 or email him at bill@schmicksretiredinvestor.com.