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 Federal Reserve's anticipated rate cuts are not merely a response to cooling inflation but a deliberate 'insurance' policy against a weak labor market. This strategy comes at the explicit cost of inflation remaining above the 2% target for a longer period, revealing a clear policy trade-off prioritizing employment over price stability.

The Federal Reserve cut rates despite inflation remaining above the 2% target. This action suggests a strategic shift towards tolerating slightly higher inflation—a "soft target" around 2.8%—to prevent the non-linear, snowballing effect of rising unemployment, which is much harder to reverse once it begins.

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.

Even if US inflation remains stubbornly high, the US dollar's potential to appreciate is capped by the Federal Reserve's asymmetric reaction function. The Fed is operating under a risk management framework where it is more inclined to ease on economic weakness than to react hawkishly to firm inflation, limiting terminal rate repricing.

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.

Under "fiscal dominance," the U.S. government's massive debt dictates Federal Reserve policy. The Fed must keep rates low enough for the government to afford interest payments, even if it fuels inflation. Monetary policy is no longer about managing the economy but about preventing a debt-driven collapse, making the Fed reactive, not proactive.

The Fed faces a political trap where the actions required to push inflation from ~2.9% to its 2% target would likely tank the stock market. The resulting wealth destruction is politically unacceptable to both the administration and the Fed itself, favoring tolerance for slightly higher inflation.

The U.S. government's debt is so large that the Federal Reserve is trapped. Raising interest rates would trigger a government default, while cutting them would further inflate the 'everything bubble.' Either path leads to a systemic crisis, a situation economists call 'fiscal dominance.'