According to BlockBeats, on November 22, a divergence in opinions emerged among Federal Reserve officials regarding the theoretical level of the neutral interest rate. This rate is considered crucial for balancing the Federal Reserve's economic objectives. In recent speeches, Austan Goolsbee, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, and Michelle Bowman, a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, expressed differing views on this matter.
Goolsbee emphasized the need for further interest rate cuts to reach the neutral level, suggesting that the current rates are significantly higher than necessary. He argued that the Federal Reserve must continue to lower rates to achieve a balanced economic stance. In contrast, Bowman indicated that the current policy stance might be closer to neutral than previously thought. This difference in perspective highlights the ongoing debate within the Federal Reserve about the appropriate level of interest rates to support economic stability.
Will Compernolle of FHN Financial noted that this divergence is not surprising, given the range of neutral rate estimates provided by Federal Reserve officials in September. These estimates, offered anonymously, ranged from 2.375% to 3.75%. The variation in these predictions underscores the complexity and uncertainty surrounding the determination of the neutral interest rate, a key factor in shaping monetary policy decisions.