This is a sample commentary post — the format is: link the thing, summarize it fairly, then add your own angle.
I read a recent op-ed arguing that the "soft landing" proves the Fed had room to cut rates much earlier. It's a clean story. I think it's too clean.
The argument being made
- Inflation fell substantially.
- Unemployment stayed low.
- Therefore the restrictive stance was unnecessary, and earlier cuts were costless.
Where I think it goes wrong
The disagreement isn't about levels — how high rates went — it's about lags. Monetary policy operates with long and variable lags. The economy holding up while rates were high doesn't prove the rates were unnecessary; it might mean the lags hadn't landed, or that supply normalization did much of the disinflation work policy gets credited for.
A soft landing is consistent with "the Fed got it right" and "the Fed got lucky on supply." The op-ed only entertains the first.
What would change my mind
A counterfactual separating demand-side disinflation (policy working) from supply-side disinflation (shipping, labor recovery, energy). If most of the fall in core inflation tracks supply measures, the "rates were too high" claim gets much stronger.