Today's number: 100. That's how many McDonald's chicken nuggets Usain Bolt ate every single day during the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Today's other number is zero. That's how many dieticians deserve employment.
Welcome to Profy Markets. I'm Edson. It is January 13th. Let's check in on yesterday's market vitals. The major indices opened the day down after the Justice Department announced it is investigating Jerome Powell. More on that in just a moment. However, they quickly erased their losses, with the Dow and the S&P closing at all-time highs. Meanwhile, the yield on 10-year Treasuries spiked before moderating. Capital One shares fell more than 6% after Trump said credit card companies should cap interest rates at 10%. Google hit a $4 trillion market cap after Apple said it will use Gemini to power Siri. And finally, President Trump said he is levying a 25% tariff on any country doing business with Iran, effective immediately. He said, quote, 'This order is final and conclusive.' Okay, what else is happening?
The Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. The probe, which was launched on Friday, is examining whether Powell lied to Congress in his testimony about the Fed's building renovations. But Powell says that the testimony, which took place last June, is merely, quote, a pretext for the Trump administration's threats to lower interest rates. In a rare video statement released on Sunday, Powell called the investigation, quote, unprecedented, and he argued that it is part of the administration's ongoing pressure campaign. Let's listen to what he said.
The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public rather than following the preferences of the president. The chain of events initially rattled markets. The S&P opened Monday in the red, but then it rallied into positive territory by the end of the day. Meanwhile, the dollar slid and investors rushed into hard assets like gold and silver, which hit record highs. So, this is a pretty incredible story that we are witnessing. And in keeping with that, we're going to do something a little bit different today. We're joined by two favorites of the Prof podcast. That is Liz Hoffman, Semafor's Business and Finance editor, and also Justin Wolfers, professor of public policy and economics at the University of Michigan. Liz, Justin, thank you very much for being here today. Excited to get into this. Liz, I'm going to start with you. I just want to start with your reactions to what we saw. We have seen a criminal investigation opened against Jerome Powell. What is your initial reaction to the news?
Pretty incredible. I mean, I watched the statement that Jerome Powell gave last night, and this is someone who has just tried as hard as humanly possible to stay away from this narrative, to kind of ignore the noise, ignore the criticism, and finally got to a place where he felt like he could not. And his statement is, I mean, it's really worth, you know, your listeners should go watch it in full. I mean, it is incredible. To state the obvious, this is not about the renovations to the Fed building and what Jay did or did not say to Congress about it. This is punitive and it's retaliatory and it's, I mean, really, you know, unprecedented is a word that's getting used quite a lot these days, but I was really floored by the whole thing.
Justin, were you floored? Is this unprecedented?
Absolutely not floored. I was flabbergasted. Completely different. Every day we hit that day where I think I never thought I'd see this in my life. So it is unprecedented in American history. It's not in the world. Tinpot dictators do this all the time. This is, and one of the things I admire Liz for, she called it what it is, which is it's the president threatening to jail the Fed chair.
Mhm. Put all the pretext aside. That's what it is. Well, so we've got a president threatening to jail the head of the central bank. That's happened before. It's happened in Russia, Venezuela, Argentina, Zimbabwe, Turkey, and now America. So it's not unprecedented, but it puts America in a club of tinpot dictatorships who've experienced hyperinflation and immense economic instability. It's bananas.
Based on those examples that we've seen in other nations. So, this hasn't happened in America. And when we say this, we're saying the president basically threatening the chair with some sort of criminal charge to enact whatever monetary policy he so desires. But given what we've seen in other nations, like you say this has happened, how does this usually play out when this happens, Justin?
Not well. So look, here's what each of the examples has in common, which is a strongman head of state. A strongman head of state possessed of enormous self-belief who eschews experts. Again, that's common in every one of those stories. And often who finds themselves in some form of economic trouble and they think they can fiddle with interest rates to solve it, or they have an internal belief that if they were to fiddle with interest rates it would lead to better outcomes. In many of these cases, can we introduce word for the day? Word for the day is fiscal dominance. Fiscal dominance is this idea that, and I think this is what's going on if you listen to what the president has said. Normally we set interest rates with a view to trying to keep inflation low and unemployment low. Interest rates play another role in our economy. The interest rates determine the monthly credit card bill for the United States. We have an enormous government debt. The interest rate determines how much we devote to paying interest. And every dollar we spend on interest is a dollar of tax cuts we can't give to our mates, or a dollar we can't spend on roads or defense or ICE. So what you get often with cases of fiscal dominance is the head of state says, 'Well, I don't like paying interest and I control the interest rate, or if I take over the central bank, I can control the interest rate.' So they could reduce the interest rate with an eye of reducing the government's interest payments. And so far so good, that works. But what that means now is that you're setting interest rates not to control inflation and not to control unemployment. If you were to do that, then you typically send interest rates far lower than current conditions warrant. And the president has already said he'd like interest rates to be 1% right now. That would give them a whole lot more money to splash around. Now if you set interest rates below what is required to keep inflation low and stable, you don't get low and stable inflation. You get higher and higher and higher inflation. As inflation goes up, the appropriate interest rate goes up too. But if you're pigheaded, you leave interest rates where they are and then inflation keeps going all the way till you get a hyperinflation. And so to be clear, this is not moving from an inflation rate of 3% to 4%. It's moving from 3 to 30, or from 30 to 300, or in some of these cases from 300 to 3,000, or in fact 3 million percent. We move to an economy where one of the most important things you do every day is you wake up and you think about inflation. You think about how to maintain your family's purchasing power.
You might say this couldn't happen in the United States, and I hope that's true. But you might have said that wouldn't have happened in some of these other countries. Some of these other countries, take Turkey for instance, it had fairly low and stable inflation. It had a checkered history, but it looked like it was determined to be a modern industrial country. And a populist strongman came to power. He got rid of the independence of the central bank. He had, like President Trump, an unusual attachment to low interest rates, implemented his own theory of the case, and Turkey ended up not that much later with 80% inflation. I would like to say that's impossible here. I can no longer say that.
Yeah, Liz. I mean, just looking at what we've got here, which is probably the clearest evidence we've seen that there is at least significant interest in reducing the Fed's independence, in bending it to the will of the strongman in this situation, which as Justin points out, like we've seen this before, we've seen this in other countries. It leads to hyperinflation almost every time. But the market's reaction has been quite interesting in that it's reacted but not massively. I mean the S&P was down and then it actually rebounded and closed in the green. Same with the Dow. We did see some big moves in gold. Gold hit a record high. Silver hit a record high. Overall, if I had to pass what the market is telling us, it's something along the lines of like this is maybe important but not that big of a deal. Would you agree with that reading? What do you make of how the market has reacted?
I would say I was disappointed but not surprised in what the administration did. I was disappointed and surprised in the collective response of the markets today. As you said, stocks ended up higher. I mean really what you want to be looking at here if you're hoping that there is some check on behavior like this is the bond market. Treasury yields I think were up a couple of basis points. I mean not reflecting any kind of concern. And if you wind back to Liberation Day, it was actually the bond market throwing a temper tantrum that got the president to back off his most aggressive tariffs. Not in fact the stock market. There's been this talk of is there a Trump put somewhere in the market? Is there a pain point that will reel in the policy process? And it is much more likely to be found in the bond market than in the stock market. As you said, gold and silver hit highs, but they've been doing so pretty consistently for a bunch of months now. I'm very surprised. And you know, I think we had a column last week saying the market's kind of acting like a teenager with noise cancelling headphones on. And I wish I had saved that column in my pocket for this week because you know, one of three things is happening. The market is kind of reading that this is going to be mostly theater, a non-event. And I should say there was some reporting today that suggested kind of that this was perhaps a rogue adviser. This came out of the district court in Washington run by Jeanine Pirro, that it may have had some influence from Bill Pulte, who's the housing czar, who has, you know, a history of some more aggressive policy ideas. And that perhaps, you know, Scott Bessent, Treasury Secretary, who's sort of emerging really as the economics czar of this administration, perhaps has some qualms and wishes it had not happened. So we'll see. There is an offramp, and as there often is around Trump, where you have advisers kind of trying to see what he might want them to do and doing it, and he can turn on them too. So there is a bit of an offramp, but yeah, you know, so either people think it is just theater and is going to go nowhere, they think it's real but not a problem, which is alarming, or they have just so totally tuned out the noise, you know, a year into the Trump administration. And I think that's a real problem. I mean, you know, the one check, like we said, on the president has been severe market reactions. And if that starts to go away, if the so-called bond vigilantes are ceding their power here, I don't know. I mean, you know, there was a call today from JPMorgan that, you know, they think the Fed's next move on rates is up, not down. Like, I don't know how to square those two things, especially if you assume that there will be a more compliant or White House friendly Fed chair coming in to replace Jerome Powell. I also think this makes it more likely that he sticks around. He's entitled to stay as a member of the board after his term as chair expires. And you could see him dig in there. So, I don't know. And we're coming off this political cycle where inflation was just proven, as it has so many times in history, to just be politically toxic. And they're already flirting with that with the tariffs, which we've not yet really seen come through on prices, but at some point probably will. Justin, you may have a point of view on this. They probably have to, if import prices are coming up, get passed on to consumers. So, this all just feels very politically dangerous. And my question often is like, who is this for? Like what even if you're trying to play kind of crass kind of campaign politics, who is this for? I don't know.
Yeah. An argument that I've seen floating around is that it's an argument that I've seen in the past, which is that Trump is trolling Jerome Powell. And so it's not to be taken seriously. It's not to be considered like a real threat. He's just having a goof. It's sort of like whatever the presidential equivalent of posting is, which seems to me to be perhaps how the market is viewing this as well. Oh, he's just trolling. Oh, it's not that big of a deal. Oh, he's just kind of kidding. I guess Justin, is that wrong? I mean, clearly we don't want to take this stuff lightly, but maybe he is just trolling and maybe we shouldn't care. I mean, what do you think?
I have a different story. So, let me try mine out. So, look, I think this is a grave, grave threat to the United States. Liz does, too. It sounds like you did, too. And every economist I spoke to today agrees. Yet, the markets didn't sink. So, option one is I'm a fool. Liz is a fool. Ed's a fool. The other economists are fools. Option two is let's go back and make sense of this. So the question is what do we know right now that we didn't know 24 hours ago? What do we know about the world? Well, last night I knew that Trump wanted leverage over the Fed. Already knew that. Last night I already knew that Trump had no respect for the independence of the Fed. He's been undermining it for a long, long time. I already knew that he weaponized the Justice Department. So all of those things I already knew. So what do they learn today? Now, one thing to understand is this news cycle did not come from the administration. It was Jay Powell who'd received the subpoenas who decided he would move this into the public arena. This was meant to be a private threat. Do what I want or you're going to jail, brother. Powell moved it to the public arena. He did so powerfully. He did so directly to the public. He's literally never done before what he did last night. Neither has any chair of any industrialized central bank that I'm aware of. He released a video directly to the American people, not only put it on the Fed website, but also many others as well to make sure it couldn't be taken down, and spoke directly to the camera about what's going on here. What happened is we had a round of Trump trying to undermine the Fed. Powell won. Powell beat him. Look, Powell said, 'I'm not backing down and you don't have the goods.' And here we are talking about it right now and everywhere. No one's saying that tomorrow that this threat, which is the only news we learned about was this threat, no one's saying this threat in and of itself is doing anything to the stance of monetary policy. And in fact, what we got was he laid the whole game out so clearly that we saw Senator Tillis today come out and say this is not okay.
Tillis said, I'm not voting for a Federal Reserve chair until this is cleared up. By which he means I'm not voting for a Trump toad. Lisa Murkowski did the same thing. What that actually means is, now I'm going to make the argument the market should have gone up because what it actually means is we were, many of us were worried that Trump was going to appoint a toad and that we would have a non-independent central bank and it would have occurred through the normal process of him suggesting Kevin, Kevin, yes sir, has it, and Kevin would have gone and been Federal Reserve chair in name only and taken all of his marching orders from the Fed and we would have gotten all of the negative consequences. And now what he's done is he's woken up the Senate and that Senate confirmation now we have at least two Republicans now on record are saying no, I'm not going to rubber stamp a toad. And I think what happens in that fight, that fight to replace Jay Powell, is going to be vitally, vitally important. But the thing I want you to notice is when I tell the story, we didn't actually learn much that was bad that we didn't already know, and markets respond to new knowledge. And so I think that's really the story. Now let me say it in simpler language. Markets had priced in that Trump hates the Fed. They priced in a lot of that. And then there's the yap, yap, yapping. Well, the president yap, yap, yaps all day. And some of the yaps are really offensive, but only some of them he means. And then even the ones he means, he often tacos. If I'm a trader on Wall Street, I would be sick to death of losing money because I responded to a yap only to get tacoed. By the way, those are technical trading terms. And so of course they're not going to move, right? So you need to discount everything by the probability that it actually happens. And for any given yap, the probability it actually becomes an untacoed outcome is incredibly low, beyond knowing that he's going to continue this campaign to undermine the Fed.
We'll be right back. And if you're enjoying the show so far, be sure to like and subscribe to the Prof Pod YouTube channel at the link below.
Support for this show comes from LinkedIn. If you've ever hired for your small business, you know how important it is to find the right person. That's why LinkedIn Jobs is stepping things up with their new AI assistant, so you can feel confident you're finding top talent that you can't find anywhere else. And those great candidates you're looking for are already on LinkedIn. In fact, according to their data, employees hired through LinkedIn are 30% more likely to stick around for at least a year compared to those hired through the leading competitor. That's a big deal when every hire counts. With LinkedIn Jobs AI assistant, you can skip confusing steps and recruiting jargon. It filters through applicants based on criteria you've set for your role and surfaces only the best matches so you're not stuck sorting through a mountain of résumés. LinkedIn Jobs AI assistant can even suggest 25 great fit candidates daily so you can invite them to apply and keep things moving. Hire right the first time. Post your job for free at linkedin.com/prof. Then promote it to use LinkedIn Jobs' new AI assistant, making it easier and faster to find top candidates. That's linkedin.com/prof to post your job for free. Terms and conditions apply.
We're back with Profy Markets. Just thinking ahead, Liz, as Justin was talking about here about what happens next for the Fed chair. I mean, his term is up in May. The concern was that we'd get some form of a yes man in his place. Do you think that this changes anything looking ahead to the next few months or so? I mean, does this tell us anything about who will be the next Fed chair? What that will look like? Does this change things, I guess is my question.
