On paper, the Fed is shrinking its balance sheet to cool the economy (quantitative tightening). In reality, rate cuts and other channels are injecting liquidity into the financial system faster than it's being removed. This contradictory policy means that despite official tightening, actual liquidity conditions are already easing, fueling asset prices.

Recent inflation was primarily driven by fiscal spending, not the bank-lending credit booms of the 1970s. The Fed’s main tool—raising interest rates—is designed to curb bank lending. This creates a mismatch where the Fed is slowing the private sector to counteract a problem created by the public sector.

The recent uptick in the Fed funds rate was not a direct signal of scarce bank reserves. Instead, it was driven by its primary lenders, Federal Home Loan Banks, shifting their cash to the higher-yielding repo market. This supply-side shift forced borrowers in the Fed funds market to pay more.

While political pressure on the Federal Reserve is notable, the central bank's shift towards rate cuts is grounded in economic data. Decelerating employment and signs of increasing labor market slack provide a solid, data-driven justification for their policy recalibration, independent of political influence.

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.

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.

The Federal Reserve’s recent policy shift is not a full-blown move to an expansionary stance. It's a 'recalibration' away from a restrictive policy focused solely on inflation toward a more neutral one that equally weighs the risks to both inflation and the labor market.

Internal Bank of England models now indicate its policy stance might have shifted to neutral or even slightly accommodative. This internal uncertainty about the true restrictiveness of rates could limit how much further easing the UK market can price in.

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.