Jerome Powell went out of his way on Wednesday to frame the Fed’s 50bps rate cut as a “recalibration” aimed at helping to align monetary policy with the balance of risks around the Committee’s dual mandate, as opposed to the onset of an aggressive easing cycle implemented to combat a developing downturn.

It’s fair, I think, to assess that Powell wasn’t as dovish as the median 2024 dot, at least to the extent he was adamant that the Fed’s taking a meeting-by-meeting approach to setting policy which is “not on any pre-set course.” The emphasis is (was) Powell’s. He enunciated “not,” and offered his usual reminder about the dot plot: It isn’t a plan, let alone a decision.

After noting that retail sales remain firm, inflation warm and overall growth steady, Steve Liesman asked how the Fed went about making Wednesday’s decision and if the market “should expect more 50s?” Powell cited the labor market. Job gains are slowing and the BLS’s preliminary annual benchmark revision suggests headline payrolls growth was meaningfully slower in the 12 months to March. The totality of the data made 50 the “right thing” for the economy this week, he told Liesman.

As for whether traders should expect more outsized cuts, Powell repeated that the Fed’s going “meeting by meeting.” “If you look at the SEP, it’s a process of recalibrating our policy stance,” he said. “There’s nothing in the SEP that suggests [we’re] in a rush. We can pause if that’s appropriate.” Not wanting to inadvertently signal something about subsequent meetings, he quickly added that the Fed will “move as fast or as slow” as necessary.

Asked if the September decision was a close call, Powell equivocated. The Committee had an “excellent discussion” and there was “broad support for the decision.” Except for Miki, that ol’ Grinch.

I’m just joking. Powell didn’t call Bowman any names. “There [was] a dissent and there’s a range of views,” he said. But there was quite a bit of agreement as well. The Fed, he went on, made a “good strong start” this week, but there’s no rush.

Nick Timiraos, who was instrumental in helping the Fed cajole market pricing back in the “right” direction in recent days, asked if traders should expect an “accelerated cadence” going forward. “We don’t think we’re behind,” Jay told Nick. Indeed, 50bps is a sign of the Committee’s commitment not to get behind. “I do not think that anyone should look at this [and say] ‘This is the new pace’,” he added, of the half-point increment.

Colby Smith, who also played a role in helping nudge markets back onside during the quiet period, wondered if the rising unemployment rate is just a function of a normalizing labor market or if it’s something more nefarious. “The labor market has cooled on any measure,” Powell told Smith, repeating a line from his Jackson Hole address. That said, the US is “still close to maximum employment.” The slower pace of jobs growth “bears watching,” but if consumer spending holds up and the economy continues to expand at a solid pace, “that should support the labor market over time.”

The Fed, Powell was keen to emphasize, isn’t seeing anything from the jobs market that should be cause for alarm. Wednesday’s move was preemptive. “The time to support the labor market is when it’s strong,” he said, delivering a line he probably practiced in the mirror a hundred times last night.

He wasn’t done. “Anything in the low 4s is a good labor market,” he reminded Bloomberg’s Michael McKee. “The question isn’t the level, the question is the change in recent months. Downside risks have increased” on that score.

Axios asked about the Beveridge curve. Powell suggested the Fed believes they’ve squeezed about as much blood as they can from that particular stone, and expressed gratitude for it. “Further declines in job openings” will likely “translate more directly into unemployment,” he said. “But it’s been a great ride down.”

Towards the end of Wednesday’s relatively painless proceedings, Powell reiterated that in his view, rates aren’t going back to pre-pandemic levels. From where he’s sitting, the neutral rate may be “significantly higher than it was” in the decade after Lehman.

Naturally, Fox News asked if the Fed was trying to influence the election. “This is my fourth presidential election at the Fed. It’s always the same,” Powell said. “We’re asking what’s the right thing to do for the people we serve. We make a decision as a group and we announce it.”