The federal funds rate is not some simple light switch. You cannot flip it down and flood the economy with prosperity, nor crank it up and instantly stamp out inflation. Yet, time and again, politicians sell it that way.

The latest example comes from the President’s aggressive campaign to slash interest rates by as much as three percentage points, to around 1%. The adminstration insists this will supercharge growth, lower mortgage costs, and save the government trillions in debt payments. But there’s a catch: no serious Fed official supports it.

The effort has become entangled with an even more troubling move. The White House is attempting to remove Federal Reserve Governor Dr. Cook, an accomplished economist whose scholarship spans international and innovation economics. Removing a sitting governor, would be unprecedented. It would also mark a dangerous intrusion of political bias into an institution deliberately insulated from politics.

To understand why this matters, we need to step back. What is inflation? What drives economic growth? And how does the federal funds rate, the obscure-sounding overnight lending rate between banks, actually connect the two?

The answers resist sound bites. That is precisely why treating the Fed’s rate as an on/off switch is both wrong and dangerous.

Among colleagues who follow the U.S. economy closely, shifts in policy direction don’t usually come as a surprise. Yet, in recent weeks, a series of reports has indicated that the administration aims to select the next Federal Reserve Chair chiefly for ideological loyalty, favoring a candidate inclined to reduce interest rates regardless of macro dynamics; the prospect has given both these authors a pause.

As trained monetary and financial economists, we’ve spent years studying the delicate architecture that allows the Federal Reserve to function independently from political pressures. When that independence is threatened, so too is the foundation of macroeconomic stability.

This moment, in our view, requires more than private concern. It calls for public reflection.

In early 2024, a friend of mine (let’s call her Jane) launched a skincare startup with a mission that was equal parts personal and global. Her serums blended botanical oils from Southeast Asia with rare extracts from Latin America, promising customers something fresh, clean, and effective.

By mid-year, boutique retailers had taken notice. Online orders were ticking upward. She was finally seeing the promise of her idea come to life until a spreadsheet of customs estimates landed in her inbox. A critical ingredient, once affordable, now carried a tariff surcharge in excess of 100%. Essentially, Jane’s next shipment would cost more in tariffs than the goods themselves.

At first, I laughed.

The idea that a grocery store cake could spark a viral meltdown felt like classic internet absurdity. When I read that Whole Foods had quietly altered the recipe of its beloved Berry Chantilly cake, I chuckled at the idea of social media users crying betrayal over a dessert.

Almost immediately, though, I felt something else: inspired. The public outcry worked. Faced with customer backlash, Whole Foods reversed course and reintroduced the original recipe. A multibillion-dollar enterprise had changed direction, not because of lawsuits or legislation, but because regular people noticed a change they weren’t okay with and refused to let it slide. That’s no small thing.

But then, I got annoyed.

For this wasn’t just about cake. It wasn’t even just about Whole Foods. Rather, it offers a glimpse into how even the most well-resourced firms quietly probe the limits of what they can impose on consumers. Instead of increasing prices outright, they shrink portions, substitute ingredients and skimp on quality. In this case, the shelf price stayed fixed despite higher berry costs and stronger demand; the company simply degraded the recipe and counted on customers failing to notice.

They never expected to feel stuck in their dream home.

When two dear friends of mine (let’s call them Joe and Jane) bought their two-bedroom starter house in late 2020, it felt like the beginning of a promising chapter. Interest rates hovered just below 4 percent, their mortgage felt manageable, and with a baby on the way, they believed they were laying down roots. By the start of 2025, the picture had changed. Two children, hybrid jobs pulling them in opposite directions, and no third bedroom in sight. They’d outgrown the house. What they hadn’t outgrown was their 3.5 percent mortgage.

Each time they browsed listings in nearby school districts, they encountered the same arithmetic. Even a comparable home, with today’s mortgage rates approaching 7%, would push their monthly payments noticeably higher. Technically, they could afford the increase, yet they always decided against putting their house on the market. To them, the cost of moving was a direct cost to their sense of security.

Earlier this year, my wife and I made what should’ve been a simple request: a short-term lease extension while we explored buying a home. We loved our apartment. Paid rent on time. We weren’t just tenants; we were good ones. Reliable, respectful, well-liked by the front office.

So when we asked about continuing our lease month to month, or even for just a few extra months, we expected at least a conversation.

What we got was a price sheet.

The cost to stay? A 90% increase. No negotiation. No consideration of our payment history or community ties. Just a single line: “This is what the system says.”

We later found out that “the system” wasn’t just a euphemism for company policy. It was a literal pricing algorithm, an increasingly common, powerful force in the U.S. housing market that determines rent levels with zero human judgment, and even less empathy.

That single moment, when we were told we could pay twice as much for reduced housing security, triggered a months-long period of research and reflection. Why is renting becoming so unaffordable and unaccountable? What do renters truly need to know?

Turns out, what seems like irrational pricing is actually part of a deeply rational, if disturbing, system. One that’s engineered for growth, not fairness. And one that’s making it harder than ever for everyday families to afford a place to live, let alone save to buy one.