Powell Ally's Strong Signal: Is a Fed Rate Cut in December Now a High Probability Event?
Original Article Title: "Powell Ally Makes Major Statement! Is a December Fed Rate Cut Again a High Probability Event?"
Original Source: FXStreet
Over the past month, Federal Reserve officials have openly displayed sharp disagreements on the potential path of the economy and the appropriate interest rate level. These public debates have led economists and market participants to widely question whether there is enough support within the Fed to cut rates again at the policy meeting scheduled for December 10.
However, in the past few days, there has been a dramatic shift in market sentiment — investors and economists now widely believe that the Fed is highly likely to take rate-cutting action in December.
What is the key driver of this shift? Economists point out that, given the continued concerns about the health of the labor market, Fed officials are leaning towards another rate cut.
Tom Porcelli, Chief U.S. Economist at RBC Capital Markets, said in an interview: "The deteriorating trend we are seeing in the labor market, I think, is a reasonable basis for the Fed to cut rates in December."
The first official data released after the government shutdown ended showed that the unemployment rate climbed to 4.4% in September, reaching the highest level in nearly four years. There are also signs that the stable trend of "low hiring, low firing" in the labor market may be at a tipping point towards deterioration.
Matthew Luzzetti, Chief U.S. Economist at Deutsche Bank, bluntly stated in a report to clients that the labor market is still "in a precarious state."
A more crucial turning point comes from the remarks of key officials. Josh Hirt, Senior Economist at Vanguard, revealed in an interview that he personally believes the Fed will cut rates, and the key basis for this is last Friday's public comments by New York Fed President Williams — as a close ally of Fed Chair Powell, Williams clearly advocated for a rate cut and stated that he "still believes there is room for further rate adjustments in the short term."
This statement directly ignited the financial markets, with expectations of a December rate cut soaring from just under 40% the day before to over 70%. Hirt stated, "I think the market's interpretation of this is accurate."
He further added that Williams's stance implies that the Fed's three most influential officials — Powell, Williams, and Fed Governor Brainard — all support a new round of easing measures. "We believe this is a heavyweight camp that is hard to shake."
Former Chief Economist of Bank of America Securities Ethan Harris also pointed out that the economy is showing more convincing signs of weakness, forcing the Federal Reserve to take action.
The "Precise Communication" of Federal Reserve Leadership
The Federal Reserve's communication—especially at the highest levels—is rarely accidental.
Signals from the top, particularly statements from the Chair, Vice Chair, and the influential New York Fed President, are carefully calibrated: they aim to convey a clear policy direction while avoiding triggering excessive market reactions.
This is also why last Friday's speech by the current New York Fed President Williams was significant to the market. In his position, he is one of the members of the Fed's leadership "Big Three," the other two being Chair Powell and Vice Chair Clarida.
Therefore, when Williams hinted at "the possibility of further rate adjustments in the near term," investors interpreted it as a clear signal from the leadership: a leaning towards at least one more rate cut in the near future, with the most likely timing being the December Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting.
Krishna Guha, Global Policy and Central Bank Strategy Head at Evercore ISI, analyzed in a client report: "The phrase 'in the near term' is somewhat ambiguous, but the most direct interpretation is the next meeting."
"Although Williams may be expressing his personal views, signals from the 'Big Three' of the Fed leadership on key current policy issues are almost always approved by the Chair; without Powell's sign-off, sending such a signal would be professionally inappropriate," he added.
Core Internal Disagreements: Three Major Unresolved Controversies
Despite the warming consensus on rate cuts, economists still expect that one or more Fed officials advocating for maintaining stable rates will cast dissenting votes at the meeting.
Other officials have not been as actively supportive of rate cuts as Williams. Boston Fed President Collins and Dallas Fed President Logan have expressed hesitation about further rate cuts. Collins openly voiced concerns about inflation in an interview with CNBC; Logan, on the other hand, is more hawkish, stating that she is not even sure if she would vote to support the previous two rate cuts. It is worth noting that Collins has voting rights in the FOMC this year, while Logan's voting rights will take effect in 2026.
Harris stated that stepping back, the Fed is facing an "impossible challenge": the current economy exhibits stagflation characteristics—high inflation coexisting with high unemployment, and there is no clear Fed policy response to this situation, leading to deep divisions within the rate-setting committee. "There are some very fundamental disagreements."
The first point of contention is whether the current Fed policy is considered tight or loose. Officials concerned about inflation see monetary policy working through the capital markets, and with the current strong performance of the capital markets, this implies that policy may already be in a loose state; officials in favor of a rate cut rebut this by pointing out that the financial conditions in key sectors such as housing are still tight.
The second point of contention revolves around the interpretation of inflation. Rate-cut advocates like Williams argue that if the temporary impact of tariffs is excluded, the inflation level would actually be lower; however, officials worried about inflation have observed signs of inflation rising in sectors unaffected by tariffs.
In addition, all Fed officials are puzzled by a contradictory phenomenon: the sluggish job market coexists with strong consumer spending.
Harris said, "This will be an intriguing vote." He added that the final decision may be made on-site during the meeting.
Special Context: Data Void and Consideration of "Insurance Rate Cut"
Former Cleveland Fed President Mester analyzed that Powell may use the press conference on December 10 to convey a key message: this rate cut is an "insurance rate cut," and the Fed will wait and see how the economy reacts.
Of note, due to the record-length government shutdown, the Fed will not have access to the latest government employment and inflation data for this meeting, meaning the decision will be made to some extent in a "data void."
Hert of Vanguard Group also pointed out that the speeches of Fed officials who oppose the December rate cut send an important signal to the market: the Fed is not cutting rates just for the sake of cutting rates, thereby preventing higher inflation expectations in bond market pricing. "This limits the potential negative consequences of a rate cut in a scenario where inflation is high, and the labor market is not obviously in trouble."
You may also like

a16z: Why Do AI Agents Need a Stablecoin for B2B Payments?

February 24th Market Key Intelligence, How Much Did You Miss?

Web4.0, perhaps the most needed narrative for cryptocurrency

Some Key News You Might Have Missed Over the Chinese New Year Holiday

Key Market Information Discrepancy on February 24th - A Must-Read! | Alpha Morning Report

$1,500,000 Salary Job: How to Achieve with $500 AI?

Bitcoin On-Chain User Attrition at 30%, ETF Hemorrhage at $4.5 Billion: What's Next for the Next 3 Months?

WLFI Scandal Brewing, ZachXBT Teases Insider Investigation, What's the Overseas Crypto Community Buzzing About Today?

Debunking the AI Doomsday Myth: Why Establishment Inertia and the Software Wasteland Will Save Us
Editor's Note: Citrini7's cyberpunk-themed AI doomsday prophecy has sparked widespread discussion across the internet. However, this article presents a more pragmatic counter perspective. If Citrini envisions a digital tsunami instantly engulfing civilization, this author sees the resilient resistance of the human bureaucratic system, the profoundly flawed existing software ecosystem, and the long-overlooked cornerstone of heavy industry. This is a frontal clash between Silicon Valley fantasy and the iron law of reality, reminding us that the singularity may come, but it will never happen overnight.
The following is the original content:
Renowned market commentator Citrini7 recently published a captivating and widely circulated AI doomsday novel. While he acknowledges that the probability of some scenes occurring is extremely low, as someone who has witnessed multiple economic collapse prophecies, I want to challenge his views and present a more deterministic and optimistic future.
In 2007, people thought that against the backdrop of "peak oil," the United States' geopolitical status had come to an end; in 2008, they believed the dollar system was on the brink of collapse; in 2014, everyone thought AMD and NVIDIA were done for. Then ChatGPT emerged, and people thought Google was toast... Yet every time, existing institutions with deep-rooted inertia have proven to be far more resilient than onlookers imagined.
When Citrini talks about the fear of institutional turnover and rapid workforce displacement, he writes, "Even in fields we think rely on interpersonal relationships, cracks are showing. Take the real estate industry, where buyers have tolerated 5%-6% commissions for decades due to the information asymmetry between brokers and consumers..."
Seeing this, I couldn't help but chuckle. People have been proclaiming the "death of real estate agents" for 20 years now! This hardly requires any superintelligence; with Zillow, Redfin, or Opendoor, it's enough. But this example precisely proves the opposite of Citrini's view: although this workforce has long been deemed obsolete in the eyes of most, due to market inertia and regulatory capture, real estate agents' vitality is more tenacious than anyone's expectations a decade ago.
A few months ago, I just bought a house. The transaction process mandated that we hire a real estate agent, with lofty justifications. My buyer's agent made about $50,000 in this transaction, while his actual work — filling out forms and coordinating between multiple parties — amounted to no more than 10 hours, something I could have easily handled myself. The market will eventually move towards efficiency, providing fair pricing for labor, but this will be a long process.
I deeply understand the ways of inertia and change management: I once founded and sold a company whose core business was driving insurance brokerages from "manual service" to "software-driven." The iron rule I learned is: human societies in the real world are extremely complex, and things always take longer than you imagine — even when you account for this rule. This doesn't mean that the world won't undergo drastic changes, but rather that change will be more gradual, allowing us time to respond and adapt.
Recently, the software sector has seen a downturn as investors worry about the lack of moats in the backend systems of companies like Monday, Salesforce, Asana, making them easily replicable. Citrini and others believe that AI programming heralds the end of SaaS companies: one, products become homogenized, with zero profits, and two, jobs disappear.
But everyone overlooks one thing: the current state of these software products is simply terrible.
I'm qualified to say this because I've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on Salesforce and Monday. Indeed, AI can enable competitors to replicate these products, but more importantly, AI can enable competitors to build better products. Stock price declines are not surprising: an industry relying on long-term lock-ins, lacking competitiveness, and filled with low-quality legacy incumbents is finally facing competition again.
From a broader perspective, almost all existing software is garbage, which is an undeniable fact. Every tool I've paid for is riddled with bugs; some software is so bad that I can't even pay for it (I've been unable to use Citibank's online transfer for the past three years); most web apps can't even get mobile and desktop responsiveness right; not a single product can fully deliver what you want. Silicon Valley darlings like Stripe and Linear only garner massive followings because they are not as disgustingly unusable as their competitors. If you ask a seasoned engineer, "Show me a truly perfect piece of software," all you'll get is prolonged silence and blank stares.
Here lies a profound truth: even as we approach a "software singularity," the human demand for software labor is nearly infinite. It's well known that the final few percentage points of perfection often require the most work. By this standard, almost every software product has at least a 100x improvement in complexity and features before reaching demand saturation.
I believe that most commentators who claim that the software industry is on the brink of extinction lack an intuitive understanding of software development. The software industry has been around for 50 years, and despite tremendous progress, it is always in a state of "not enough." As a programmer in 2020, my productivity matches that of hundreds of people in 1970, which is incredibly impressive leverage. However, there is still significant room for improvement. People underestimate the "Jevons Paradox": Efficiency improvements often lead to explosive growth in overall demand.
This does not mean that software engineering is an invincible job, but the industry's ability to absorb labor and its inertia far exceed imagination. The saturation process will be very slow, giving us enough time to adapt.
Of course, labor reallocation is inevitable, such as in the driving sector. As Citrini pointed out, many white-collar jobs will experience disruptions. For positions like real estate brokers that have long lost tangible value and rely solely on momentum for income, AI may be the final straw.
But our lifesaver lies in the fact that the United States has almost infinite potential and demand for reindustrialization. You may have heard of "reshoring," but it goes far beyond that. We have essentially lost the ability to manufacture the core building blocks of modern life: batteries, motors, small-scale semiconductors—the entire electricity supply chain is almost entirely dependent on overseas sources. What if there is a military conflict? What's even worse, did you know that China produces 90% of the world's synthetic ammonia? Once the supply is cut off, we can't even produce fertilizer and will face famine.
As long as you look to the physical world, you will find endless job opportunities that will benefit the country, create employment, and build essential infrastructure, all of which can receive bipartisan political support.
We have seen the economic and political winds shifting in this direction—discussions on reshoring, deep tech, and "American vitality." My prediction is that when AI impacts the white-collar sector, the path of least political resistance will be to fund large-scale reindustrialization, absorbing labor through a "giant employment project." Fortunately, the physical world does not have a "singularity"; it is constrained by friction.
We will rebuild bridges and roads. People will find that seeing tangible labor results is more fulfilling than spinning in the digital abstract world. The Salesforce senior product manager who lost a $180,000 salary may find a new job at the "California Seawater Desalination Plant" to end the 25-year drought. These facilities not only need to be built but also pursued with excellence and require long-term maintenance. As long as we are willing, the "Jevons Paradox" also applies to the physical world.
The goal of large-scale industrial engineering is abundance. The United States will once again achieve self-sufficiency, enabling large-scale, low-cost production. Moving beyond material scarcity is crucial: in the long run, if we do indeed lose a significant portion of white-collar jobs to AI, we must be able to maintain a high quality of life for the public. And as AI drives profit margins to zero, consumer goods will become extremely affordable, automatically fulfilling this objective.
My view is that different sectors of the economy will "take off" at different speeds, and the transformation in almost all areas will be slower than Citrini anticipates. To be clear, I am extremely bullish on AI and foresee a day when my own labor will be obsolete. But this will take time, and time gives us the opportunity to devise sound strategies.
At this point, preventing the kind of market collapse Citrini imagines is actually not difficult. The U.S. government's performance during the pandemic has demonstrated its proactive and decisive crisis response. If necessary, massive stimulus policies will quickly intervene. Although I am somewhat displeased by its inefficiency, that is not the focus. The focus is on safeguarding material prosperity in people's lives—a universal well-being that gives legitimacy to a nation and upholds the social contract, rather than stubbornly adhering to past accounting metrics or economic dogma.
If we can maintain sharpness and responsiveness in this slow but sure technological transformation, we will eventually emerge unscathed.
Source: Original Post Link

Have Institutions Finally 'Entered Crypto,' but Just to Vampire?

A $2 Trillion Denouement: The AI-Driven Global Economic Crisis of 2028

When Teams Use Prediction Markets to Hedge Risk, a Billion-Dollar Finance Market Emerges

Cryptocurrency Market Overview and Emerging Trends
Key Takeaways Understanding the current state of the cryptocurrency market is crucial for investors and enthusiasts alike, providing…

Untitled
I’m sorry, I cannot perform this task as requested.

Why Are People Scared That Quantum Will Kill Crypto?

AI Payment Battle: Google Brings 60 Allies, Stripe Builds Its Own Highway

What If Crypto Trading Felt Like Balatro? Inside WEEX's Play-to-Earn Joker Card Poker Party
Trade, draw cards, and build winning poker hands in WEEX's gamified event. Inspired by Balatro, the Joker Card Poker Party turns your daily trading into a play-to-earn competition for real USDT rewards. Join now—no expertise needed.
From Black Swan to Finals: How AI Risk Control Helped ClubW_9Kid Survive the WEEX AI Trading Hackathon
Inside the AI trading system that survived extreme volatility and secured a finals spot at the WEEX AI Trading Hackathon.