Writing 📍
The Collusion of Nixon’s Politics and Monetary Policy
With this week’s appointment of Kevin Warsh to Federal Reserve Chair by President Trump, it seems fitting to look back at another President who was not afraid to put his thumb on the scales of monetary policy. While 2026 is not 1970, we can learn a lot from studying the history books. Arthur Burns’ chairmanship of the Federal Reserve from 1970–1978 remains a definitive cautionary tale of how political encroachment can compromise central bank independence. Driven by fear of political defeat, President Richard Nixon utilized personal ties and systemic leverage to force the Federal Reserve into an expansionary stance. The result was short-term political triumph for Nixon, but long-term economic disaster for the United States, cementing the era of “stagflation”.
Richard Nixon’s obsession with economic metrics stemmed from the 1960 presidential election. He blamed his narrow loss against John F. Kennedy on the Federal Reserve’s refusal to ease monetary policy during a pre-election recession. To secure control over monetary policy, Nixon appointed his long-time economic adviser and personal friend, Arthur Burns, as Federal Reserve Chairman in early 1970. While Burns was an accomplished economist, his personal loyalty to Nixon fatally compromised his institutional neutrality. Archival evidence from the Nixon White House Tapes reveals an aggressive campaign of intimidation. Nixon routinely brought Burns into the Oval Office, demanding faster expansion of the money supply. When Burns hesitated, the administration planted false stories in the press and threatened to expand the Federal Reserve Board to dilute his voting power. Burns ultimately capitulated, shifting the central bank to a highly expansionary stance throughout late 1971 and 1972.
Burns’s capitulation was not entirely forced; it was also enabled by flawed economic theories. Burns held a non-monetary view of inflation. He argued that rising prices were driven by the monopoly power of labor unions and corporations rather than excessive money printing. Because Burns believed monetary policy was powerless against structural inflation, he endorsed Nixon’s August 1971 “Nixon Shock”. This policy temporarily froze wages and prices and broke the dollar’s link to gold. With artificial price ceilings masking underlying inflation, Burns felt justified expanding the money supply to achieve full employment.
The short-term political calculation achieved exactly what Nixon wanted. The economy boomed just in time for the 1972 election, allowing Nixon to win a historic landslide. However, the bill arrived immediately afterward. When the unsustainable wage and price controls were lifted in 1973, the suppressed inflationary forces burst into the open. This internal monetary imbalance was further aggravated by the 1973 OPEC oil embargo, pushing the U.S. economy into double-digit inflation and a deep recession by 1974. By continuously blaming “special factors” like crop failures and energy prices rather than his own monetary expansion, Burns allowed inflation expectations to become deeply entrenched in American society.
The Nixon-Burns era proved that central banks cannot effectively combat inflation if they are micromanaged for short-term electoral gains. Subsequent research confirms that political pressure shocks increase long-term inflation without providing any lasting benefit to real economic growth. This historic failure permanently altered the architecture of global central banking. It underscored the absolute necessity of institutional independence—a principle later utilized by Paul Volcker to finally break the back of the inflation that Burns and Nixon unleashed.
Watching what is happening with inflation in May 2026 🔎
The Consumer Price Index (CPI) report released on May 12, 2026, revealed a significant acceleration in inflationary pressures during the month of April, driven largely by energy shocks from the ongoing war with Iran. Something to consider as you head out shopping, planning for the next few months, and what is likely to change and happen with the economy over the next few months. Higher prices ahead!
Key Takeaways from the May 2026 Report 
- Headline Inflation Surge: The annual inflation rate jumped to 3.8% in April, up from 3.3% in March, marking the highest level in nearly three years.
- Monthly Price Growth: Consumer prices rose 0.6% in April. While this was a slight deceleration from March’s 0.9% spike, it remains a “brisk pace” that signals persistent heat in the economy.
- Energy and Food Pressures: Energy costs—specifically gasoline—accounted for over 40% of the broad increase in inflation. Food prices also saw a notable surge during the month.
- Sticky Core Inflation: The “core” CPI, which strips out volatile food and energy, rose to 2.8% year-over-year. This suggests that price pressures are becoming more entrenched beyond just temporary energy spikes.
- Economic Outlook: The data indicates an “overheating” economy where resilient consumer demand and a tight labor market are allowing firms to pass higher costs on to consumers.
Housing & Shelter (Up 3.3% Annually) 
Shelter remains the largest component of the “core” index and saw a notable acceleration this month.
- Monthly Jump: The shelter index rose 0.6% in April, doubling its March pace.
- Statistical Artifact: Part of this spike is attributed to a “one-time adjustment” following the October 2025 government shutdown, which temporarily skewed data collection for rental surveys.
- Rent vs. OER: Both Rent of Primary Residence and Owners’ Equivalent Rent (OER) rose by 0.5% over the month.
Food Prices (Up 3.2% Annually) 
After a relatively soft March, food costs rebounded as higher transportation and fertilizer expenses began to “pass through” to consumers.
- Grocery Inflation: The Food at Home index rose 0.7% in April alone. Major drivers included fruits and vegetables (+1.8%) and meats, poultry, fish, and eggs (+1.3%), with beef specifically jumping 2.7%.
- Dining Out: The Food Away from Home index rose 3.6% annually, driven by a 3.8% increase in full-service meals.
- Category Spikes: Some of the sharpest yearly increases were seen in nonalcoholic beverages (+5.1%) and eggs (+14.6%).
Likely Next Steps for Interest Rates 
Following the report, market expectations for immediate interest rate relief have effectively evaporated.
- Near-Term Stasis: The Federal Reserve is widely expected to keep the benchmark federal funds rate unchanged at 3.50%–3.75% for the foreseeable future.
- Rate Cuts Pushed Back: Major financial institutions, including Goldman Sachs and Bank of America, have pushed their forecasts for the next rate cut into late 2026 or even 2027.
- Hike Risks Re-emerge: For the first time in several months, traders are pricing in a small but notable probability (roughly 30%) of a rate hike by the end of the year if inflation does not begin to cool.
- Leadership Transition: The outlook is further complicated by the imminent confirmation of Kevin Warsh as the new Fed Chair, as markets wait to see if his initial policy stance will be more hawkish in response to these rising prices.
Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH)
The Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH) is a financial theory stating that asset prices, particularly stocks, reflect all available information, making it impossible to consistently achieve higher returns than the overall market. Developed by Eugene Fama in the 1970s, it implies that stocks always trade at their fair value, meaning “beating the market” through expert analysis is impossible.
Key Components and Forms of EMH
The theory suggests that because information is immediately incorporated into prices, only new information (unpredictable news) can change prices, leading to a “random walk”.
- Weak Form: Suggests that all past trading information (prices and volume) is reflected in current prices, meaning technical analysis cannot produce superior returns.
- Semi-Strong Form: Argues that all public information (earnings, news) is already incorporated, meaning fundamental analysis cannot produce superior returns.
- Strong Form: Asserts that all information, public and private (insider info), is reflected in prices, meaning no one can beat the market.
If the EMH is true, investors should favor passive investing strategies, such as buying low-cost index funds, rather than trying to pick individual stocks or hiring active managers. The theory implies that active management is ineffective, as the cost of research and trading outweighs any gains.
Critics argue that market anomalies, such as long-term market overreactions or periods of irrationality driven by behavioral biases (fear and greed), prove that markets are not perfectly efficient. Behavioral finance suggests that investor psychology causes prices to deviate from their true value.
NPR
The U.S. war with Iran has pushed inflation to its highest level in almost three years.
Consumer prices in April were up 3.8% from a year ago, according to a report Tuesday from the Labor Department. That was the biggest annual increase since May 2023.
Prices rose 0.6% between March and April.






