Thank you Mr. Ni for divergent thinking~ A lot of people talk about Powell, and the focus is on him 1. whether it is too slow (too slow to raise interest rates + too slow to cut rates); 2. Whether you cover the sky with one hand. First of all, let's review that since Powell took office in 2018, the U.S. economy has experienced a process from strong growth to the impact of the new crown epidemic and then to a gradual recovery. Although he succeeded in stabilizing financial markets in early 2020 with unprecedented easing (such as outright purchases of corporate bonds and massive quantitative easing) in the face of the pandemic, the 2018 rate hike also triggered wild market volatility, with Trump publicly criticizing him for being too aggressive at the time (although Powell himself considered himself to be too late). Overall, however, Powell's performance in crisis management is still very good, but it is still debatable whether the policy adjustments in the regular period are fully competent, especially in balancing inflation control and long-term economic growth. But maintaining economic growth and price stability is not the task and goal of one of the Fed's departments. If monetary policy compares the impact on liquidity from fiscal policy, monetary policy (e.g., interest rate cuts or rate hikes) directly affects market liquidity through interest rate adjustments and open market operations, and the impact is rapid and widespread, especially in emergency situations (e.g., 2020). Fiscal policy (e.g., government spending or tax cuts) affects liquidity more indirectly, requires congressional approval, and lags in implementation but may be larger (e.g., pandemic-era stimulus packages). Against the current backdrop of 4.5% interest rates, a rate cut may boost risk appetite in the short term, but if fiscal policy is accompanied by large-scale infrastructure or subsidies, the liquidity shock may be more prolonged. The combination of the two is key, and monetary policy alone may not be able to cope with long-term inflationary pressures. In other words, the dilemma faced by another chairman cannot be solved by simply adjusting interest rates. If Powell leaves due to political pressure, such as Trump's influence, the new president may change his style, but internal disagreements and data orientation will limit the possibility of "covering the sky with one hand". This is because the Fed's independence is largely due to the fact that its decision-making is not directly interfered with by Congress or the executive branch, and that the FOMC's meetings and dot plots reflect collective judgment based on data, rather than a single leadership (just look at the daily speeches of each voting committee). Of course, there is an argument that Powell must be able to influence other voters to be eligible to be chairman, and that is possible to work for the Fed to have a say, so I don't). This checks and balances enhance market trust in policy, but it can also complicate expectations management. For the market, this independence provides stability, but it can also trigger short-term volatility due to a lack of transparency in decision-making.