AEI economist Michael Strain argues the economy’s strength despite higher rates suggests the neutral federal funds rate—one that neither stimulates nor restricts growth—is significantly higher than the Fed's ~3% estimate. This implies current monetary policy may not be as restrictive as widely believed.

At 4.325%, the current Fed Funds rate is right at its 70-year median. This historical context, combined with large fiscal deficits, supports a contrarian view that monetary policy is actually accommodative or neutral, not restrictive as often claimed.

Contrary to the idea that AI justifies rate cuts, the boom is likely increasing the neutral rate of interest (R-star). By stimulating corporate investment and household consumption, AI creates upward pressure on rates, which limits the Federal Reserve's ability to ease monetary policy.

The Federal Reserve describes its policy as removing "a dose of accommodation," not making conditions restrictive. This analogy of easing off the accelerator, rather than braking, suggests the central bank believes the economy can withstand further rate hikes, making them more probable.

Because the neutral rate of interest (R-star) is a theoretical, unobservable concept, policymakers can manipulate its estimated value to justify their desired interest rate policies. This allows them to argue for rate cuts or hikes based on a non-falsifiable premise, making it a convenient political tool rather than a purely objective economic guide.

Robert Kaplan argues that with inflation at 2.75-3%, the neutral Fed funds rate is ~3.5-3.75%. Since the current rate is 3.75-4%, another cut would place policy at neutral, not accommodative. This is a risky position when inflation remains well above the 2% target, leaving no room for error.

Interest rates are driven by nominal GDP (real growth + inflation). A strong economy combined with persistent inflation means nominal GDP is rising, increasing the "fair value" for interest rates. If the Fed doesn't keep pace, it's effectively easing policy.

Despite nominal interest rates at zero for years, the 2010s economy saw stubbornly high unemployment and below-target inflation. This suggests monetary policy was restrictive relative to the era's very low "neutral rate" (R-star). The low R-star meant even zero percent rates were not stimulative enough, challenging the narrative of an "easy money" decade.

The economy's resilience to rate hikes suggests the Fed's estimate of the neutral rate (R-star) is too low. The current model is overly influenced by the "extraordinary period" after the 2008 financial crisis. The true neutral nominal rate is likely closer to 4%, meaning current policy is still accommodative.