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.
Related Insights
The Fed's recent rate cuts, despite strong economic indicators, are seen as a capitulation to political pressure. This suggests the central bank is now functioning as a "political utility" to manage government debt, marking a victory for political influence over its traditional independence.
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.
The act of a small committee deciding the "correct" cost of money is analogous to communist planners setting prices for consumer goods. This approach assumes an impossible level of knowledge and control over a complex economy, a model that has consistently failed throughout history.
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.
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.
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.
Current rate cuts, intended as risk management, are not a one-way street. By stimulating the economy, they raise the probability that the Fed will need to reverse course and hike rates later to manage potential outperformance, creating a "two-sided" risk distribution for investors.
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.
Jerome Powell's "driving in fog" analogy highlights the Fed's strategy of using uncertainty, such as a government shutdown delaying economic data, to justify slowing down policy changes like rate cuts. This gives them flexibility to guide markets later through speeches without being locked into a specific path.
