Fed Governor Stephen Myron argues Trump's policies will lower the neutral rate, necessitating aggressive rate cuts. Conversely, Bloomberg Economics’ model suggests these same policies—like massive government borrowing and fracturing trade alliances that reduce foreign capital inflows—will significantly increase the neutral rate, highlighting the concept's deep ambiguity in practice.
Related Insights
The Fed kept interest rates higher for months due to economic uncertainty caused by Donald Trump's tariff policies. This directly increased borrowing costs for consumers on credit cards, car loans, and variable-rate mortgages, creating a tangible financial impact from political actions.
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.
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.
When government spending is massive ("fiscal dominance"), the Federal Reserve's ability to manage the economy via interest rates is neutralized. The government's deficit spending is so large that it dictates economic conditions, rendering rate cuts ineffective at solving structural problems.
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 Federal Reserve's anticipated rate cuts are not a signal of an aggressive easing cycle but a move towards a neutral policy stance. The primary impact will be modest relief in interest-sensitive areas like housing, rather than sparking a broad consumer spending surge.
A single neutral interest rate may not exist. There could be one R-star for the investment-heavy AI sector and another for housing. A separate R-star might even be needed for financial stability. This divergence means the Fed faces a policy trade-off where a rate that balances one part of the economy could destabilize another.
The Fed is cutting rates despite strong growth and inflation, signaling a new policy goal: generating nominal GDP growth to de-lever the government's massive, wartime-level debt. This prioritizes servicing government debt over traditional inflation and employment mandates, effectively creating a third mandate.
