I think Kevin Warsh will do everything he possibly can to avoid raising rates.

Contrary to most (all?) the FOMC summaries I read on Wednesday and Thursday, I don’t think there was anything inherently hawkish about his performance at this week’s press conference.

The SEP inflation projections were hawkish and so were the dots. But Warsh didn’t submit a dot. And by jettisoning forward guidance altogether in the statement, he avoided having to co-sign a policy pronouncement which conveyed a shift in the Committee’s thinking on the balance of risks around the dual mandate. Sure, the dots conveyed that shift anyway, but again, Warsh didn’t submit a dot.

I talked at length about all of that and how it dovetails (no policy pun intended) with the broader discussion about democratic backsliding in America in “Let’s Not Be Naive About Kevin Warsh.” You should read that if you haven’t already. This article’s an addendum of sorts.

I’m going to ask you folks a question, but first I’m going to present you with a quote from Warsh’s press conference. Here’s the quote:

[I]nflation is primarily determined by monetary policy. You bet it is. I’ve said for years inflation is a choice. You bet it is. And today I’m announcing that this Committee unambiguously and unanimously have decided we are going to deliver on that.

That’s Warsh essentially reiterating his opening remarks (“I am pleased to report that members of the FOMC are unambiguous and unanimous: This Committee will deliver price stability”) while responding to Colby Smith, who wondered “how patient the Fed can afford to be after so many years of inflation running above target.”

Now here’s my question: What else would the Fed — could the Fed — have possibly “decided” with regard to the inflation “choice”?

In cases where you have reason to suspect — and you’ll pardon the profanity — that someone’s full of sh-t, as I strongly suspect with Warsh, a useful exercise involves subjecting the things they say, and particularly the things they forcibly assert, to what I call the “Could it have been otherwise?” test. Let’s do that with Warsh’s “strong” statement on price stability.

Imagine that rather than responding to Smith as he did, Warsh said, instead, this:

I’ve said for years that price stability is a choice. You bet it is. And today I’m announcing that, after mulling it over, this Committee has decided we aren’t going to deliver on that after all.

Is that something that was within the realm of the possible? No. No it’s not. That’d be like the fire chief telling a reporter at a town hall that after some debate and careful consideration, the department decided not to put out fires anymore.

Smith asked specifically about the current circumstances, and Warsh gave her a generic answer — a verbatim quote from his opening remarks. Although those opening remarks also referenced the ongoing inflation overshoot, they hardly counted as the emphatic statement of intent that some analysts took them to be.

If Warsh really wanted to make a strong statement on inflation, or otherwise enhance the Fed’s institutional credibility, he could’ve said, at the outset, something like this:

We didn’t issue any forward guidance today. And we don’t plan to for the foreseeable future. However, I want to be clear up front that inflation’s far too high currently, and that if it remains at or near current levels, or rises further, we’ll be statutorily obliged to address it using our tools. That’s all I have to say on the subject, and that’s the last time I’ll make a forward-looking comment on our policy settings.

That would’ve been a strong statement on price stability. And it would’ve had the added benefit of addressing, obliquely, myriad nagging questions about institutional independence in the context of the leadership change.

Saying, as Warsh did instead, that the Fed still plans to look after price stability as a matter of procedural course, is to say nothing at all. They have two jobs, and that’s one of them. Since when does reaffirming a generic commitment to price stability make you a hawk?

Inshallah, the Strait of Hormuz will remain open, input price pressure will recede and whatever’s already in the pipeline in terms of pass-through to core price growth will prove tolerable and fleeting.

Warsh isn’t just hoping for the best in that regard, he’s effectively betting his reputation on it. Because if US inflation stays near 4% or, God forbid, accelerates further, he’ll be between Scylla and Charybdis: Forced to choose between another bout of runaway price growth or hiking rates just weeks before the mid-terms.

If that happens and he tries to avoid raising rates, he’ll have a revolt on the Committee and his reputation for being a credible policymaker will be ruined forever.

If, on the other hand, he were to hike just a few months into his tenure… well, that’s just it: I don’t think he has the gumption. Really I don’t. I don’t know what everyone else saw on Wednesday, but I didn’t see a man prepared to stand up to, let alone stare down, Donald Trump.