Get your free personalized podcast brief

We scan new podcasts and send you the top 5 insights daily.

Current central banking models are designed for demand management (neo-Keynesianism) and are ineffective against structural supply shocks like the Hormuz crisis. Institutions like the Fed lack the tools and intellectual framework to respond appropriately, like 'a fish understanding a bicycle'.

Related Insights

Monetary policy operates with a 12-18 month lag, whereas the inflationary effects of oil shocks are immediate and front-loaded. By the time interest rate changes impact the economy, the initial inflationary pressure from oil has passed, making a policy response ineffective and potentially harmful.

Historical precedent is unequivocal: central banks do not cut interest rates in response to an oil shock. Despite the negative growth impact, their primary concern is preventing the initial price spike from embedding into long-term inflation expectations. Market hopes for easing are contrary to all historical data.

The Federal Reserve cannot print oil. Therefore, during a supply-side commodity crisis, any major policy intervention will originate from fiscal authorities (e.g., the White House), not from monetary policy, which would only exacerbate inflation.

Contrary to narratives about excess demand, the recent inflationary period was primarily driven by supply-side shocks from COVID-related disruptions. Evidence, such as the New York Fed's supply disruption index accurately predicting inflation's trajectory, supports this view over a purely demand-driven explanation.

The Fed's power comes from the 'divine coincidence': the most cyclical industries (like construction) are also the most sensitive to interest rates. This allows the Fed to use rates as a 'volume knob.' However, stagflation (high inflation and high unemployment) breaks this link, creating a policy catch-22 with no obvious playbook, making it a central bank's worst nightmare.

The market's complacency about the Iran crisis stems from misunderstanding physical oil logistics. The last tankers from Hormuz are just now arriving. The actual supply disruption hasn't begun, setting up a "Wile E. Coyote moment" where markets realize the damage far too late.

It's the volatility and unpredictability within the supply chain environment—rather than the magnitude of a single shock—that can dramatically amplify the inflationary effects of other events, like energy price spikes. This suggests central banks need situation-specific responses.

An oil supply shock initially appears hawkishly inflationary, prompting central banks to hold or raise rates. However, once prices cross a critical threshold (e.g., >$100/barrel), it triggers severe demand destruction and recession, forcing a rapid policy reversal towards aggressive rate cuts.

When oil prices spike, they create widespread inflation. This prevents the Fed from using its primary tool—cutting interest rates—to help a struggling economy, as doing so would risk runaway inflation. The Fed is effectively caged until oil prices fall, leaving the market without its usual safety net.

The economic regime has shifted from demand-driven problems (post-GFC) to supply-driven ones. This includes negative shocks like energy crises and positive ones like AI. These are fundamentally "engineering problems"—rewiring physical production and transport—which are much harder and slower to solve than boosting demand via policy.

Central Banks Are Intellectually Unprepared for Structural Supply-Side Shocks | RiffOn