The emotional fluctuations in the financial markets are just like the thoughts of Federal Reserve officials during the "quiet period"—calm on the surface, but with undercurrents beneath.

The internal structure of the Fed is also full of dramatic tension.

The voting members who openly support pausing rate cuts include Collins, Goolsbee, Musalem, Schmid, and Governor Barr. They act as a conservative line of defense, refusing to let go when the economy "hasn’t reached the cliff" yet.

On the other hand, supporters of rate cuts include Bowman, Waller, Miran, and Williams, with the latter insisting on a "50bps cut," as if pounding the table with a hammer.

If you were Powell, you’d truly have to consider whether you’re acting as a security guard or a firefighter.

My stance is simple: in a complex economic environment and turbulent political climate, the market’s eagerness for rate cuts is actually a form of “self-comfort”—after all, no one wants to swim naked before a liquidity crisis hits, but cutting rates too aggressively brings fears of drowning in an inflationary flood.

This isn’t about right or wrong on either side, but rather the inevitability of risk and game theory.

The Fed’s choices aren’t simply “good or bad,” but rather “picking the least bad option among the bad ones.”