저자: JeremySiegel및언급된GoldmanSachs/JPMorgan견해;영상진행자미상 · 외국인
요약 보기
2026년 금리인하 기대가 중동 충돌에 따른 호르무즈 해협 봉쇄와 에너지 가격 급등으로 뒤집혔다. 시겔은 연준이 금리인하를 포기하고 인상까지 할 수 있다고 경고. 에너지 물가 +12.5%, 헤드라인 3.3%, 고용 +17.8만 명. CME 기준 4~12월 인하 확률 거의 0. 골드만은 인하 전망, JP모건은 2027년 인상 가능성 언급. 파월 임기(5/15) 만료와 워시 청문회 연기로 연준 리더십 공백 우려.
다듬은 글
So, 2026 was supposed to be the turning point, right? The one where interest rates would finally come down, bringing some oxygen. And instead, the exact opposite happened: it became the year of the great reversal. Let's try to understand together how everything could have changed so radically. The question is precisely this: what went wrong?
Because at the beginning of the year, but we're talking about a few months ago, everyone, absolutely everyone, was expecting a bit of a breather. Monetary easing that would have benefited families and businesses. Then, suddenly, something broke and now we're trying to figure out exactly what. And this change, look, has been incredibly rapid, almost brutal.
All the hopes, all the predictions from the beginning of the year, poof, collided with a harsh reality and everyone, absolutely everyone, had to completely recalibrate their expectations. And amidst all this confusion, there is one voice that has risen louder than the others: that of Jeremy Siegel. And let's be clear, when an economist of his caliber, a Wharton professor, changes his mind in such a clear, radical way, well, the world stops and listens, and how.
And here's the point, his bombshell sentence. It's not a prediction, you know? It's a warning, black and white. He said: "The Fed should not only abandon the idea of cutting rates, but may be forced to raise them." Do you understand? Not no cuts, but even new increases. This, well, this completely turns the tables.
The scenario that everyone expected no longer exists. Okay, but such a strong statement must have a solid foundation, right? And Siegel, in fact, builds his reasoning on three pillars. The first is that there is too much liquidity around, too much money in the system. Second, government spending continues to pump fuel into the economic engine.
And then, the third, the spark that makes everything explode, a sudden shock in the prices of raw materials, of energy. And this third point deserves a more in-depth analysis. And here it is, the spark, what transformed economists' fears into a real, concrete crisis. We are talking about a conflict in the Middle East, a conflict that has led to the blockade of one of the nerve centers of world trade, the Strait of Hormuz.
20%. Let's dwell on this number for a moment . 20% of all the world's oil passes through there. Not a small part, a fifth. Blocking that strait isn't a local problem; it literally means turning off a huge tap for the global economy. The consequences, of course, are immediate. And speaking of consequences, look at this.
$167 a barrel, this is the projection if the blockade were to last 9 months. These are figures that have not been seen for years. Such a cost affects everything, absolutely everything, from a full tank of gas to the price of food at the supermarket. But the problem is much bigger than the price at the pump.
We are talking about $2.2 trillion of global GDP at risk. We're talking trillions. This is to say that this is not a regional crisis, confined to one corner of the world. No, this is a systemic, global threat. This timeline is, honestly, scary. It shows us how quickly things can escalate. At first, for less than two weeks, okay, it's a shock, but it can be managed.
But then, between two and four weeks, the word that no one wants to hear comes out : stagflation, stagnant growth and soaring prices. After one to three months the system can no longer absorb the shock. And after 90 days the damage becomes structural and at that point a global recession becomes practically inevitable.
Time is everything here. Well, so far we've talked about risks and geopolitical scenarios, but now let's move on to concrete data, because the fears we've discussed are no longer just hypotheses on paper. No, they started to show up in the numbers, the real ones. And this graph is the perfect picture of the problem.
Let's look at overall inflation, the headline, 3.3%, but the figure that catches the eye is another, that of energy, plus 12.5%. This is what is dragging down everything else, because if we look at core inflation, that which excludes energy and food, it is much more contained, the culprit is very clear.
And here we come to a paradox, almost an irony of fate. Despite all this chaos, the job market is solid, very strong. 178,000 new jobs were created . And you'd think, "Well, that's great news." But no, or rather, not entirely, because such a strong economy actually gives the Federal Reserve, so to speak, permission to be tough, to keep rates high for longer, because the economy seems able to withstand the shock.
And the markets? Well, the markets know how to calculate, they understood the situation very well . Just look at this chart from CME FedWatch. Chances of a cut in April? Zero. In June? Practically zero. Even in December, the vast majority of operators are betting that nothing will change. The hopes of the beginning of the year, as seen here, have been literally erased.
But if the data seems clear, the interpretations are not at all; indeed, even on Wall Street, among those who should know better, there is a clear divide, a real clash of visions of the future. And it's a clash of the titans, basically. On one side we have Goldman Sachs, the optimist. They say, "Don't worry, the Fed will understand that the energy shock is temporary." And then there's artificial intelligence, technology, which will keep prices low and still predict two rate cuts.
On the other side is JP Morgan, the realist, or perhaps the pessimist. They say: "Be careful, the world is more fragmented, inflation will be higher for a long time. Rather than cuts, we could even see increases in 2027." They are two radically opposed worldviews. And just when we thought the picture was complicated enough, along comes the twist, the final incredible wild variable.
Right now, at its greatest time of need, the institution that should be steering the ship through the storm, the Federal Reserve, finds itself without a helmsman, or rather, in the midst of a leadership crisis. The problem is exactly this: a political and legal battle is blocking the nomination of the new Fed chairman, and it's happening at the worst possible time.
This creates a power vacuum, an uncertainty that, for the markets, is pure poison. Let's look at the calendar for a moment, because it's a race against time. April 21, the hearing for the new candidate, Kevin Warsh, was postponed. May 15, the term of the current president, Jerome Powell, expires. What happens after May 15th?
The real risk is that Powell will remain as president pro tempore, but with limited powers, if the Senate does not resolve the situation, just as the global economy is trembling. And the reason for this blockade is almost absurd. A single senator is holding confirmation hostage. And why? Because he tied his vote to the closure of a Justice Department investigation .
An investigation that concerns, among other things, restructuring at the Fed. In short, a political battle that is creating enormous institutional instability. And so, at the end of this entire analysis, the question that remains unanswered is as simple as it is, frankly, disturbing. With the global economy teetering on a razor's edge , an energy shock hitting the headlines, and inflation soaring, who's really steering the ship? Who's in charge right now?
Comments 0