I have read the thoughts of a monetarist professor on Warsh's debut, and I would like to summarize the core points Financial program host David Lin interviewed Steve Hanke, a professor of applied economics at Johns Hopkins University, specifically to discuss Warsh's first FOMC meeting and the recent US Iran agreement. Hanke is a staunch monetarist scholar with a perspective that is different from most of the technical and macro schools in the market. Let's summarize his core viewpoints. First, let's talk about his opinion on Warsh's debut Hanke believed that keeping interest rates unchanged was a wise choice, as there was a 99.6% probability in the market at the time that there would be no interest rate hike. He also mentioned a detail: Walsh did not want to trigger a serious voting split within the FOMC during his first hosting meeting, so choosing to remain inactive was a prudent opening strategy to some extent. But after the meeting, the market felt a clear tightening sentiment. The two-year US Treasury yields have risen, while stocks, gold, and Bitcoin have all fallen in response. CME's Federal Reserve Watch tool shows that the market has begun to price the possibility of one to three interest rate hikes before the end of the year. Hanke's own judgment is more eagle like. He believes that the Federal Reserve may be forced to further tighten in the future, as the current inflation rate is still at 4.2%, far above the 2% target. His understanding of inflation is very different, it's worth mentioning As a monetarist scholar, Hanke criticized the current Federal Reserve and former chairman Powell for completely ignoring the growth of the money supply. He pointed out that the money supply has been accelerating over the past 18 months. More importantly, he emphasized a point that many people overlook: about 80% of the currency in the system is actually created by commercial banks through lending, and the influence of the Federal Reserve itself is relatively limited. Nowadays, commercial banks are making huge profits and have sufficient capital, and are crazily lending. There is an interesting contradiction here. During the meeting, Walsh discussed the possibility of relaxing regulations on commercial banks. Hanke warns that if banking regulation is really relaxed, it will further enhance the lending capacity of banks and instead push up the money supply, which is in conflict with the Federal Reserve's goal of suppressing inflation by raising interest rates. Simply put, it means stepping on the brake while releasing the accelerator. His positioning of Walsh is a "lightweight monetarist" - unlike Powell who completely disagrees with money supply theory, Walsh did openly question QE and the expansion of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet in 2009, with a hint of monetarist bias, but not to the purely hardline level of Volcker. Hanke acknowledges the changes in communication mechanisms Walsh significantly reduced the length of his statement this time, canceled forward guidance, and even did not submit a dot matrix chart himself. Hanke has a high evaluation of this change. He believes that the lengthy statements made by the Federal Reserve in the past were essentially creating ambiguity and giving a group of analysts in the market who specialize in interpreting the Fed a job. Clearly stating one's stance on a single page can actually reduce a lot of unnecessary market noise. This perspective is somewhat different from the previously discussed constructive ambiguity of Greenspan. Hanke values the value of clarity itself more than the flexibility brought by ambiguity. His attitude towards the US Iran agreement is very sharp During the G7 period, Trump signed a memorandum of understanding with Iran, including the establishment of a $30 billion private fund to invest in Iran. After the agreement was reached, oil prices plummeted from nearly $90 to around $75. Hanke's evaluation is quite direct, calling this war one of the biggest strategic failures in American history. There are three reasons: the core goal has not been achieved, and there has been no change in the Iranian regime; The control of the Strait of Hormuz has actually been transferred to the Iranian side, and in the future, the passage of merchant ships may require approval or even payment from Iran; The US weapons inventory has been greatly depleted, and its international reputation has also been damaged, as it has negotiated twice but still resorted to violence. He also proposed a less discussed perspective: Trump's eagerness to sign this agreement may be due to the fact that the US strategic oil reserves are nearing depletion and must be stopped quickly to replenish them, otherwise he will face greater economic risks. If this judgment is true, then the short-term decline in oil prices may only be temporary, as the demand for replenishing inventory will in turn push up prices. His three predictions for the end of the year In terms of inflation, he believes that inflation has completely escaped and it is impossible to return to the 2% target in the short term. In terms of the real economy, due to the accelerated release of money supply in the past, the economy will maintain a "decent" state, without recession, but not prosperity, which is an awkward combination of moderate growth accompanied by high inflation. In terms of energy, due to the rigid demand for replenishing inventory, he believes that oil prices will soon enter an upward trend again. The inspiration this interview gave me is as follows Hanke reminded of an easily overlooked underlying variable: the money supply. If the lending of commercial banks continues to accelerate, even if the Federal Reserve is hawkish, the actual liquidity environment may not have truly tightened. The oil price line is also worth re examining. If Hanke's logic of replenishing inventory holds true, the easing of inflation caused by the current drop in oil prices may only be temporary, not structural. What economists say is often inaccurate for short-term investment decisions, and this should be clear. But professional knowledge still needs to be heard. We need to have our own judgments, but we cannot be completely influenced by our own thoughts, as it is easy to fall into confirmation bias and only see information that supports our own views. Listening to sounds from different angles is to make up for the missing part in one's own perspective.