Warsh advocates for a nuanced Fed policy: simultaneously cutting interest rates while passively shrinking the balance sheet by letting bonds mature. This "passive quantitative tightening" aims to reduce the Fed's market footprint without the shock of active selling, representing a middle ground between aggressive easing and hawkish tightening.

Warsh contends that post-crisis quantitative easing primarily inflated asset prices (stocks, housing) rather than stimulating the real economy through traditional credit channels. This created a system where sophisticated investors profited by "playing the game," while wage earners lagged behind, questioning the policy's efficacy and fairness.

Kevin Warsh argues the Fed has experienced "scope creep" by taking on quantitative easing, broad bank regulation, and social initiatives. He advocates for a return to a narrow mandate focused on price stability, using interest rates as the primary tool and exiting non-conventional mechanisms.

Critics allege Kevin Warsh exhibits a pattern of partisanship, worrying about inflation and fiscal excess under Democratic presidents but pivoting to pro-growth, lower-rate stances under Republicans. This behavior raises serious questions about his political independence and commitment to the Fed's dual mandate, regardless of the administration in power.

Kevin Warsh argues that Quantitative Easing (QE) disproportionately benefits the wealthiest citizens. By working primarily through asset price inflation (stocks, housing), it creates significant wealth for the sophisticated investors who understand the central bank's strategy, while the real economy, where most people earn their income, underperforms.

Kevin Warsh advocates for a nuanced economic policy that avoids both the short-termism of temporary stimulus checks and the punishing effects of pure fiscal austerity. His approach focuses on pro-growth supply-side reforms like simplifying the tax code and reducing regulation to foster long-term investment rather than just reinflating consumer bubbles.

Due to massive government debt, the Fed's tools work paradoxically. Raising rates increases the deficit via higher interest payments, which is stimulative. Cutting rates is also inherently stimulative. The Fed is no longer controlling inflation but merely choosing the path through which it occurs.

A highly technical insight reveals Kevin Warsh favors returning to the pre-2008 monetary system of "scarce reserves." This would be a major operational change from the current "ample reserves" framework, requiring the Fed to actively manage daily liquidity and significantly shrink its balance sheet to exert policy discipline.

Under "fiscal dominance," the U.S. government's massive debt dictates Federal Reserve policy. The Fed must keep rates low enough for the government to afford interest payments, even if it fuels inflation. Monetary policy is no longer about managing the economy but about preventing a debt-driven collapse, making the Fed reactive, not proactive.