#美联储货币政策 Seeing the Fed's current 9:3 voting split is quite interesting. Goolsby and Schmidt's dissenting voices remind me of key policy turning points in history.

The quantitative easing after the 2008 financial crisis was met with market euphoria, but the subsequent stagflation pressures and asset bubbles were not fully anticipated by many at the time. This time, the Fed is trying to balance inflation and growth, but from the detail Goolsby emphasized—"more than four and a half years above the target"—it seems that inflation is more stubborn than expected.

In my recent interactions, I can also sense this market unease. The key is the attitude of waiting for more data—this may seem conservative, but in my experience, such caution usually means that policymakers are not entirely confident internally. When businesses and consumers prioritize prices as their main concern, the central bank's monetary policy is already somewhat passive.

How much the interest rate will be cut next year really depends on the inflation data. If the tariff shocks prove to be temporary, rate cuts may come; but if this round of price pressures evolve into a more persistent structural problem, don't expect large-scale easing. This is somewhat similar to the taper tantrum period in 2013—markets expected a certain policy path, but reality was much more complex.

History shows that hasty policy shifts often lay the groundwork for the next cycle's pitfalls. The Fed is now choosing to wait and see. While the short-term markets may be disappointed, in the long run, this restraint might be precisely what is needed.