The Federal Reserve is tightening policy just as forward-looking inflation indicators are pointing towards a significant decline. This pro-cyclical move, reacting to lagging data from a peak inflation print, is a "classic Fed error" that unnecessarily tightens financial conditions and risks derailing the economy.

At 4.325%, the current Fed Funds rate is right at its 70-year median. This historical context, combined with large fiscal deficits, supports a contrarian view that monetary policy is actually accommodative or neutral, not restrictive as often claimed.

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.

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.

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 Fed's policy models are failing because they haven't adapted to a new demographic reality. After being slow to recognize the deflationary effects of demographics last cycle, they are now missing the inflationary pressures of the current one, such as lower labor supply, leading to persistent policy errors.

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.

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's rate policy is driven by flawed data. The BLS's shelter inflation component has a built-in six-month delay and uses outdated collection methods. Real-time data shows inflation is already at target, meaning current high rates are unnecessarily damaging the economy.