Several policy rules in the Federal Reserve's Friday report prescribe higher interest rates; the same report warns that those paths cannot be read literally because the economy would have evolved differently had policymakers followed them. [1]

That caveat extends the paper's separation of futures bets from strategist yield forecasts; thursday's article argued that distinct instruments measure distinct things and that neither constitutes a Fed decision; a policy-rule output adds a third instrument, not a vote.

Rate-trading X can extract the upward arrow and discard the counterfactual, although no verified post specific to Friday's rules surfaced; Reuters preserves both halves of the institution's account: several prescriptions point higher, and the model economies behind them are not the economy that actually occurred. [1]

The fetched report does not establish which rule the committee endorses, whether any voter will adopt its prescription or how the calculations would change under alternative histories; the upward indications matter as analytical evidence; calling them a forecast or a completed hike would erase the warning the Fed placed beside them.

-- HENDRIK VAN DER BERG, Brussels