#通货膨胀 Seeing the Federal Reserve's internal 9-to-3 voting result, my alertness immediately went to the max. This is not just a simple disagreement over interest rate cuts; it's a signal of indecision between inflation and employment— the most dangerous kind of signal.

Remember stagflation in the 1970s? Back then, the Fed kept changing course, resulting in entrenched high inflation, and investors suffered heavy losses. The current situation feels familiar: price pressures remain stubborn, but the labor market is cooling down. Both Goolsbee and Schmiedt emphasize "more data is needed to decide." In other words, they are uncertain.

Even more concerning is Powell's dot plot—only one rate cut expected in 2026, far below market expectations of two. What does this mean? Liquidity won't be as loose as everyone imagines. Projects and investment logic driven by cheap funds need to be re-evaluated.

Tariffs, AI productivity, persistent inflation risks... these variables intertwine, making the situation more complex when the Fed changes leadership in the second half of next year. History tells me that the greatest uncertainty also brings the greatest risk. What to do is to hold onto cash reserves, be wary of promises relying on loose monetary policy, and wait for clearer data before taking action.