Debate on cause of rise of the long term bond yields:
Two models, both produced by economists affiliated with the Fed:
1) ACM (it’s all real yields/growth/ppl expect Fed to hike)
2) KM (it is term premium)
Warsh picked the former interpretation. As did the rest of the FOMC, implied in the SEP
More than a year ago, debate on whether tariffs would generate persistent vs transitory inflation:
Two models also from Fed affiliated economists:
1) tariffs generate persistent inflation (new research)
2) tariffs deflationary in the long term, and initially a one off price change (from a long standing structural model that proved to be correct in 2018)
The FOMC adopted the first interpretation, until facts showed otherwise today.
Tell me that economics is not a dismal science.
At least the Fed should debate about this, disagree. That is not what the SEP show.
Group think is rearing its ugly head inside the Fed again.
The under appreciated signal from the Druckenmiller op-ed isn’t that he disagrees with Bessent; it’s that a man who’s long AI has turned to AI to convey a self-serving message and, in the process, inadvertently vapourised the mystique surrounding his own reputation and credibility in the market.
If so, that’s not a warning over US debt sustainability, it’s a demonstration of how blowback and reflexivity can get the better of you in markets.
https://t.co/ceuAbw2mb4