Actually this is pretty poor from such a well regarded publication as the Economist. The tag of "news analysis" should read "punditry". There is no facts cited by the author, I suppose it is assumed that all know the assumptions that the Fed used for the rate cut, and then the author picked at the bones of these assumptions to build an outcome they preferred. There is no attempt to look at the complete answer, in this authors viewpoint, the Fed fired the only shot it had - short term interest rates (rates between banks for overnight loans actually) and seemed to miss the mark. The article made no mention of what the Fed has been doing for the past months in the quest for liquidity, and how that and the cut in interest rates are stoking the fires of inflation - potentially the real culprit here. Given the US Government no longer publishes the M3 value anymore, we are getting a twisted view of inflation and its impacts on the markets and the economy as a whole. The author ends with a fairly high handed "Fed should always be the calm centre of a financial storm" when in reality there is nothing for the Fed to do but hold on and face the "Perfect Storm" created from its own policies. Heaven (or other place of the deity of your choice) help the others - the rest of us - that do not have a boat to float through that wall of debt.