Is the Fed's Rate Hike Repeating the Fatal Path of the 2008 Financial Crisis?

marsbitPubblicato 2026-09-10Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-09-10

Introduzione

As oil prices near $100 per barrel, a market strategist warns that if the Federal Reserve raises interest rates amid an energy price shock, it could repeat a major policy mistake from before the 2008 financial crisis: misreading supply-driven price spikes as economic overheating. James Thorne, chief market strategist at Wellington Altus, argues that central banks should not hike rates during an energy supply shock. He draws parallels to 2008, when the Fed, concerned about inflation risks from rising energy costs, overlooked how high prices were eroding household purchasing power and slowing growth. Thorne questions whether the Fed, now under the leadership of Kevin Warsh, will repeat this error, noting the European Central Bank has already done so by raising rates in response to inflation partly driven by the war in Iran. The warning comes as U.S. gasoline prices hit a September record. Meanwhile, a New York Fed survey shows consumer pessimism about personal finances is growing, though short-term inflation expectations remain stable. The job market sends mixed signals: perceived unemployment risk is down, but expectations for the overall unemployment rate are rising. The Fed faces a policy dilemma as it prepares for its September meeting, with some officials recently advocating for a rate hike. Upcoming PPI and CPI data will be key to its decision.

Written by: Wu Yu, Jinshi Data

As oil prices once again approach $100 per barrel, a market strategist has warned that if the Federal Reserve raises interest rates amid an energy price shock, it could repeat one of the most damaging policy mistakes from before the 2008 financial crisis—misjudging price increases caused by an energy supply shock as economic overheating.

James Thorne, Chief Market Strategist at Wellington Altus, stated bluntly on social platform X on Monday: "Basic economics: You cannot raise rates during an energy supply shock!"

He further questioned whether the Fed, led by Kevin Warsh, would repeat the mistake of the European Central Bank by tightening policy during an energy supply shock, mistaking price increases driven by external factors for overheating demand.

Thorne linked the current situation to 2008. At that time, then-Fed Chair Ben Bernanke had warned that rising energy prices "added to upside risks to both inflation and inflation expectations." Thorne believes the Fed was overly focused on inflation and inflation expectation risks at that time, neglecting that high energy prices were weakening household purchasing power and dragging down economic growth.

He pointed out that while investors often remember the Fed's emergency rate cuts after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, they easily forget that the Fed had already begun considering tightening policy at the time, and the European Central Bank raised rates just before the financial crisis hit.

Thorne believes that the current policy signals from the Fed and the European Central Bank share similarities with the narrative before the 2008 crisis, namely the potential to further tighten financial conditions and suppress demand—perhaps to demonstrate a commitment to fighting inflation—during an energy shock.

"Will the Fed learn from this?" Thorne questioned, "We know the ECB did not."

He believes the European Central Bank has already repeated this mistake. The ECB raised rates by 25 basis points to 2.25% in June, becoming the first major central bank to hike rates due to inflation triggered by the Iran war; the market widely expected it to raise rates again by 25 basis points at its September 10 meeting, with traders assigning a 99% probability.

Rising oil prices provide a real-world backdrop for this concern. Over the past month, U.S. WTI crude has surged more than 20%, while Brent crude has risen over 18%. U.S. gasoline prices hit a record for September over the Labor Day weekend, reaching $4.15 per gallon.

Household Finances Under Pressure, but Labor Market Remains Resilient

Meanwhile, a survey released by the New York Fed on Tuesday showed that U.S. consumers' perception of their own financial situation is deteriorating. In August, 38.6% of respondents believed their household financial situation had "gotten much worse" or "somewhat worse" compared to a year ago, up from 37.6% in July; the proportion expecting their financial situation to worsen further in the next year also rose from 30.3% to 32.6%.

Labor market indicators presented a mixed picture. Respondents perceived the probability of losing their job in the next year fell to 13.8%, the lowest since February; the probability of voluntarily leaving a job rose for a second consecutive month to 19.5%, higher than the average of the past 12 months. However, the average perceived probability that the overall unemployment rate would be higher in a year increased to 44.4%, the highest since April 2020; if they lost their job, respondents' perceived probability of finding a new one within three months dropped to 45%.

Inflation expectations showed slight improvement. Consumers' expectations for inflation one year and five years ahead held steady at 3.6% and 3.0%, respectively, while the three-year-ahead expectation edged down from 3.3% in July to 3.2%.

Recent employment data still showed labor market resilience. U.S. non-farm payrolls increased by 162,000 in August, exceeding all expectations in a Bloomberg survey, with the unemployment rate holding steady at 4.1%.

The Federal Reserve is scheduled to hold a policy meeting in Washington from September 15 to 16, having already kept rates unchanged for five consecutive times. At the last meeting, three officials favored a 25 basis point rate hike, and a growing number of officials have begun questioning whether the current level of interest rates is sufficient to curb inflation.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics will release the August Producer Price Index (PPI) on Thursday and the Consumer Price Index (CPI) on Friday. These data will be crucial for the Fed in navigating this policy dilemma.

Domande pertinenti

QAccording to market strategist James Thorne, what major policy error might the Fed repeat if it raises interest rates during an energy price shock?

AAccording to market strategist James Thorne, the major policy error would be misjudging price increases caused by an external energy supply shock as a sign of economic overheating, which is the destructive mistake made leading up to the 2008 financial crisis.

QWhat specific action by the European Central Bank (ECB) does the article cite as an example of making this policy error?

AThe article cites the European Central Bank's decision in June to raise interest rates by 25 basis points to 2.25%, becoming the first major central bank to hike rates due to inflation driven by a war involving Iran.

QWhat trend in consumer sentiment regarding personal finances is reported from the New York Fed's August survey?

AThe New York Fed's August survey shows that consumer sentiment regarding personal finances is deteriorating. A larger percentage of respondents (38.6%) felt their household financial situation had worsened compared to a year ago, and more people (32.6%) expected their finances to worsen further in the coming year.

QDespite concerns about personal finances, what aspect of the labor market showed resilience according to the article?

ADespite concerns, the article states that employment data shows the labor market remains resilient. The August non-farm payrolls added 162,000 jobs, exceeding all Bloomberg survey estimates, and the unemployment rate held steady at 4.1%.

QWhat key upcoming economic data does the article mention as being critical for the Fed's upcoming policy decision?

AThe article mentions that the key upcoming economic data for the Fed's decision are the August Producer Price Index (PPI) and the Consumer Price Index (CPI), both to be released by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics later in the week.

Letture associate

Founders Fund Leads $5 Million Token Purchase of ANVL: What Exactly is This "Non-Lending" DeFi Protocol Doing?

On October 6th, Founders Fund, led by Peter Thiel, invested $5 million to purchase ANVL tokens from the DeFi protocol Anvil's treasury. The round included participation from Pantera Capital and others, alongside angel investors like Compound founder Robert Leshner. Anvil is not a lending protocol. Instead, users lock assets like ETH or USDC into its vault to generate a verifiable on-chain "Letter of Credit" (LOC). This LOC acts as an economic guarantee, proving the user has sufficient locked collateral to back financial commitments, without borrowing funds. The protocol applies this mechanism to use cases like payment guarantees for merchants (via integration with Flexa) and enabling instant deposits for traders on exchanges like Bullish. Anvil's economic model is unique: it charges zero protocol fees. Its native token, ANVL, derives value solely from governance rights over parameters like supported collateral types. The total supply is 100 billion tokens. Despite an 83% price surge on the investment news, ANVL remains down approximately 89% from its all-time high. The protocol's Total Value Locked (TVL) has also fallen about 87% from its peak of ~$109 million in July 2025 to around $14 million currently. The investment represents a strategic bet that on-chain credit guarantees could become a significant category. Key factors to watch include the rate of real enterprise adoption through Anvil's SDK, the long-term sustainability of its zero-fee model, and the broader migration of traditional trade finance needs to blockchain infrastructure.

marsbit1 h fa

Founders Fund Leads $5 Million Token Purchase of ANVL: What Exactly is This "Non-Lending" DeFi Protocol Doing?

marsbit1 h fa

Mathematical Explosion: OpenAI Overnight Solves 722 Math Problems, Quasi-Riemann Hypothesis Proven

OpenAI has stunned the global mathematics and AI communities by releasing a GitHub repository containing 722 manuscripts addressing 372 previously unresolved major mathematical problem families, all reportedly generated by an unreleased internal AI model. The announcement, made without prior peer review, has provoked both excitement and alarm among mathematicians. The most notable breakthrough claims to be a proof of a "quasi-Riemann Hypothesis," establishing a zero-free region for Dirichlet L-functions with real part greater than 7/8 and eliminating the Landau-Siegel zeros—a significant leap in analytic number theory. The work has reportedly undergone formal verification using Lean. Other highlighted results include: unconditionally proving the NP-hardness of the basic semidefinite programming (SDP) threshold for approximation algorithms, based solely on P ≠ NP and circumventing the Unique Games Conjecture; proving the rational Hodge conjecture for abelian varieties with complex multiplication (CM); and resolving both the symmetric and asymmetric Mahler conjectures in convex geometry. According to OpenAI, most proofs were generated automatically by the model, with an average "thinking" time of just three hours per problem. This unprecedented scale and speed have sparked intense debate about the future of human mathematicians. While some express fear about the concentration of intellectual power, others see it as the dawn of a new era of discovery driven by AI. The mathematical world is now tasked with scrutinizing these claims, which, if verified, would represent historic milestones.

marsbit1 h fa

Mathematical Explosion: OpenAI Overnight Solves 722 Math Problems, Quasi-Riemann Hypothesis Proven

marsbit1 h fa

As Midterm Elections Approach, the Real Trade in U.S. Stocks Isn't About Who Wins

With the US midterm elections approaching in early November, political uncertainty has re-emenrged as a market variable. While market participants are weighing potential shifts in congressional control and policy direction, historical data suggests midterm elections themselves are not a definitive negative catalyst for US equities. Since 1937, the S&P 500 has averaged a positive gain of 9.2% in midterm election years, though this lags behind the 13.3% average for non-election years. A more consistent historical pattern is increased market volatility and a tendency for stronger performance concentrated in the fourth quarter, as political uncertainty is resolved. The article, citing analysis from J.P. Morgan and Capital Group, argues that the market's primary concern is policy path uncertainty rather than which party wins. This uncertainty tends to depress markets in the run-up to the vote, with a potential rebound afterward as the political risk premium dissipates. However, the article cautions against attributing market performance solely to the election. Recent midterm years like 2018 and 2022 saw significant market declines primarily driven by factors like Federal Reserve tightening and inflation, not the election outcome itself. The core argument is that the midterm election's impact on markets is often secondary to more fundamental drivers. Regardless of whether the result is a unified or divided government, the market's longer-term trajectory has historically been determined by underlying economic conditions. For the current environment, the key variables to watch post-election are not political labels but the path of interest rates, corporate earnings trends, and whether any actual policy changes materially alter cash flow expectations for businesses. The election may influence sentiment and policy expectations, but the sustainability of any year-end rally will ultimately depend on these core fundamentals of profitability, rates, and economic data.

marsbit1 h fa

As Midterm Elections Approach, the Real Trade in U.S. Stocks Isn't About Who Wins

marsbit1 h fa

AI Can't Change 'DNA': How Long Can SanDisk Stay Strong?

**AI Cannot Alter the "DNA": How Much Longer Can Western Digital's Run Last?** This analysis examines the sustainability of the current "super cycle" for NAND flash memory, driven by AI, with a focus on Western Digital (WD). The core argument is that while AI demand has fundamentally shifted NAND's role from a data warehouse to an essential component on the compute path, especially for AI inference, this does not eliminate the industry's cyclical nature. The piece first assesses the supply-demand dynamics. On the supply side, major producers are showing capital expenditure restraint for NAND, prioritizing DRAM/HBM. Capacity growth through 2028 relies heavily on technological upgrades (increasing 3D layers to 300+) and expansion primarily from China's YMTC, rather than new fabs. Global new fab capacity from players like Samsung and WD/Kioxia is concentrated post-2029. This results in estimated bit supply growth (CAGR ~24% for 2026-2028) largely driven by higher per-wafer output. Demand is undergoing a structural shift. AI-related NAND demand (for data lakes, KV cache, and staging) is forecast to grow at a 75% CAGR from 2025-2028, becoming the dominant driver. Data center demand will surpass 50% of total NAND demand in 2026. Consumer demand (PC, smartphone) is being squeezed and is expected to decline or stagnate. A key 2027 demand catalyst is NVIDIA's Rubin platform with its dedicated contextual memory storage (ICMS). The analysis concludes that a supply-demand deficit will persist into 2027. However, 2028 is identified as a potential inflection point where supply (led by YMTC's new fab) could outpace demand, ending the price rally. For Western Digital, the analysis models a more conservative path than management's guidance. It forecasts Average Selling Price (ASP) peaking in FY28 (ending June 2028) before declining in FY29-30 as the market loosens, though supported by long-term agreements (LTAs) and a higher mix of data center products. Consequently, margins and profits are expected to peak in FY28 and then contract. The valuation suggests WD's current price largely reflects a neutral scenario, with limited short-term upside unless the market becomes convinced that prices will remain stable post-2028. The fundamental takeaway is that despite AI's transformative impact, NAND's cyclical "DNA" remains intact.

marsbit2 h fa

AI Can't Change 'DNA': How Long Can SanDisk Stay Strong?

marsbit2 h fa

Trading

Spot
活动图片