Rajan suggests that a central bank's reluctance to aggressively fight inflation may stem from a fear of being blamed for a potential recession. In a politically charged environment, the institutional risk of becoming the 'fall guy' can subtly influence policy, leading to a more dovish stance than economic data alone would suggest.

The widely expected 25 basis point rate cut was overshadowed by two dissents—one for a larger cut and one for holding rates steady. This internal division, along with four reserve banks requesting no discount rate change, signals significant uncertainty and disagreement within the Fed about the future path of monetary policy.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics' decision to delay key employment reports until after the December FOMC meeting has dramatically reduced the probability of a rate cut. This 'data vacuum' forces the Fed to be cautious and lean hawkish, as making a dovish pivot without supporting data is too risky.

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.

Despite conflicting inflation data, the Federal Reserve feels compelled to cut interest rates. With markets pricing in a 96% probability of a cut, failing to do so would trigger a significant stock market shock. This makes managing market expectations a primary driver of the policy decision, potentially overriding pure economic rationale.

The upcoming FOMC meeting is a crucial inflection point. A rate cut will focus investors on the timing of subsequent cuts. A hold will pivot the conversation to whether the easing cycle is over and if rate hikes could return in 2026, dramatically impacting Treasury markets.

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.

When questioned on the effectiveness of one 25bps cut for the labor market, Fed Chair Powell replied it would do "nothing" but that "it's the path that matters." This statement implies the Fed is not making a one-off adjustment but beginning a deliberate easing cycle.

The split vote on rate cuts (hawkish vs. dovish) is not merely internal politics. It reflects a fundamental tension between strong consumer activity and AI spending versus a weakening labor market. Future policy hinges on which of these trends dominates.