This is a wry observation, thanks for posting.

For me, the idea of trying to preserve stability, in context of the Fed, seems maybe the biggest mistake.

If the stable state is preservation of inequality, as it seems to be, then that is obviously not best.

If we think of wealth like fluid flow, there are two ways to achieve the aim of circulating the fluid; passive, and active.

Passive flow is obtained by creating and maintaining a differential, like height, between the points of flow.

That seems similar to how inequality / capitalism / colonialism has worked, to circulate wealth, to date, but as we’ve seen, it takes a huge toll on humanity, and our planet, to maintain it.

In isolated economies, per country, as we were before things like the internet, that was the only option, since there were effectively open interfaces between the separate economies of different countries, the “plumbing” between us could never be pressurised.

But now the system is closed worldwide, the Fed now appears to be something like a pump, which was previously only a big storage tank.

When they issue stimulus, the wealth is literally pumped, and strange things happen, like shares in conventionally bankrupt companies soaring, and oil prices going negative.

The pump has only been turned on intermittently, in drips and drabs.

I can’t wait to see what happens when we realise it can be turned on, and left on, with one caveat, we eventually need to tap into the sun, to replenish the wealth supply from the only true free source of it, which needs to become the ultimate driver, the Fed is a useful pressure ballast, which can issue this new form of free money as a kind of credit, towards that outcome, with no need to go about changing anything else.

All they need to do is turn the pump on, and leave it on, with a reminder we need to tap into the sun.

After that, the system performance will be very simply, and very accurately modelled, just like any other pumped fluid system.