The U.S. central bank wields a powerful hammer with its ability to move interest rates. Despite its strength, though, we think the central bank is poorly suited to address key concerns arising from high oil prices and the rollout of AI.
March 12, 2026
By Atul Bhatia, CFA
By moving interest rates, the U.S. central bank can help drive the cost of credit, thereby spurring or discouraging investments, and it can push asset prices higher by engaging in longer-term bond purchases. These are undoubtedly powerful economic tools.
But the Fed is not omnipotent. And as we survey the economic landscape, most of the key issues we see are, if not immune, certainly highly resistant to Fed intervention. The result is that while guessing the direction of Fed policy will be critical for certain types of cash-management decisions, in the larger investment context, a few 25 basis points moves here or there may well be overshadowed by other policy and macroeconomic factors.
As we see it, the biggest tasks for U.S. and global policymakers are responding to a potential oil supply shock and dealing with the implications of AI on workers – both as economic units and as members of society. Neither of these factors, however, is amenable to correction by the Fed.
Oil price shocks represent a risk of stagflation, a period of above-target inflation coupled with slow, or even negative, economic growth. This is both theoretically and practically tough for a central bank. Inflation calls for higher rates, contractionary environments call for lower rates, and policymakers risk exacerbating a negative trend with any move.
The real problem, in our view, isn’t that the Fed is forced to pick a side between contraction and inflation. The real problem is that the Fed’s policy levers are largely useless to deal with either condition.
Let’s start with the contractionary effects of an oil supply shock. A contraction generally calls for looser policy and easier credit to spur investment and hiring.
But if energy can’t be had at an economically viable price to produce or transport goods, what does it matter if funding costs are a few basis points – or even percentage points – lower? A logistics firm isn’t going to go on a truck-buying spree if high diesel prices make it impossible to run the machinery profitably. Even firms that have access to energy supply at a reasonable price aren’t immune to an energy shock; there’s no point in them building a new factory if their customer base is struggling to pay for gas. Rate policy works well to encourage growth when cost of capital is the binding constraint on investment, and that’s just not the case today, in our view.
Dealing with supply-side inflation is equally problematic for the central bank. Rate hikes are the usual policy tool used to deal with rising prices, and the idea is to restrict credit and growth to bring supply and demand into better balance. But when there is a restriction in something as fundamental as energy, the amount of contraction required to bring balance would be crushing for the economy and the country, in our opinion. It would amount to killing the patient to cure a symptom.
Rather than offsetting the direct impact of higher oil prices, the main argument in favour of hiking rates in a stagflationary environment is secondary effects. The idea is that restrictive policy helps ward off the dreaded wage-price inflation spiral, where rising prices on consumer goods lead to higher wages which in turn set off another round of consumer inflation. It was this type of self-reinforcing mechanism that played a key role in U.S. inflation in the 1970s. While this is a nice argument in theory and has a reasonable historical hook, it doesn’t seem to us to have much relevance to modern reality.
In the 1970s, roughly one-third of U.S. workers were unionised, and cost-of-living adjustments were built into collective bargaining agreements. Today, just over 10 percent of workers are unionised, and wages linked to inflation are largely a thing of the past.
More broadly, the rise of independent contractors and gig workers, combined with the threat of AI and the signs of a softening labour market, mean workers have little effective negotiating power to turn higher consumer prices into higher wages. Even during the post-pandemic labour shortages, real median wages in the U.S. only rose US$3.00 per week between Q1 2022 and Q1 2024. With labour slack building and the threat of AI overhanging the labour force, is it credible to think that the broad core of workers is going to be negotiating better deals now?
The bottom line, we believe, is that the Fed can make a symbolic move by shifting rates half a point lower or higher, but that should be taken for what it is: a symbol. The real-world economic impact of that type of policy is likely, we believe, to be dwarfed by developments in the Middle East.
AI has begun displacing knowledge workers and, in our view, will almost certainly continue to do so. In economic terms, this is a win. The discipline is, after all, about maximising output given scarce resources. If AI can achieve the same production while using fewer workers, we think an economic boon will have been achieved.
Key to achieving that win is the belief that these freed-up workers will be deployed elsewhere and create new products. On a macro scale, that’s probably true.
But for the newly freed-up worker, the picture is less rosy. Many of them have spent years or even decades acquiring the education and experience that made them “knowledge workers.” Stripped of that value, their employment alternatives will likely be fewer and worse. For those who remain employed in their original profession, we expect AI to leverage their skills and provide an economic benefit. But for the rest, uncertainty reigns.
When we look at the AI-labour dynamic, it seems fairly obvious to us that the forces involved are unlikely to respond to a quarter-point change or two in overnight interbank borrowing rates. It’s not like anyone will keep a human developer on the payroll at six figures instead of a free AI tool just because their payroll costs can be funded at three percent instead of 3.5 percent. Instead, we think fiscal and legislative policy together are the appropriate tools for addressing the economic and social implications of a technology revolution.
“Don’t fight the Fed” is an aphorism for a reason. Within its sandbox, the institution is incredibly powerful. But when it comes to issues such as supply shocks and labour markets upended by innovation, we think the limits of the institution’s power become apparent. The Fed will no doubt do what it can, but what it can do may fall far short of what is needed.
We want to talk about your financial future.
This publication has been issued by RBC’s Wealth Management international division in the United Kingdom and the Channel Islands which is comprised of an international network of RBC® companies located in these jurisdictions and includes RBC Europe Limited and Royal Bank of Canada (Channel Islands) Limited. You should carefully read any risk warnings or regulatory disclosures in this publication or in any other literature accompanying this publication or transmitted to you by RBC’s Wealth Management international division.
This publication has been compiled from sources believed to be reliable, but no representation or warranty, express or implied is made to its accuracy, completeness or correctness. All opinions and estimates contained in this report are judgements as of the date of this report, are subject to change without notice and are provided in good faith but without legal responsibility. This report is not an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any securities. Past performance is not a guide to future performance, the value of investments and income arising can go down, future returns are not guaranteed, and an investor may not get back the amount originally invested. Countries throughout the world have their own laws regulating the types of securities and other investment products and services which may be offered to their residents, as well as the process for doing so. As a result, any securities or services discussed in this report may not be eligible for sale in some jurisdictions. This report is not, and under no circumstances should be construed as, a solicitation to act as a securities broker or dealer in any jurisdiction by any person or company that is not legally permitted to carry on the business of a securities broker or dealer in that jurisdiction. Nothing in this report constitutes legal, accounting or tax advice or individually tailored investment advice.
This material is prepared for general circulation and does not have regard to the particular circumstances or needs of any specific person who may read it. The investments or services contained in this report may not be suitable for you and it is recommended that you consult an independent investment advisor if you are in doubt about the suitability of such investments or services. To the full extent permitted by law none of the entities which comprise the international division of RBC Wealth Management nor any of their affiliates, nor any other person, accepts any liability whatsoever for any direct or consequential loss arising from any use of this report or the information contained herein. No matter contained in this document may be reproduced or copied by any means without the prior consent of RBC Wealth Management.
Clients of RBC Europe Limited may be entitled to compensation from the UK Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) if it cannot meet its obligations. This depends on the type of business and the circumstances of the claim. For further information about the compensation provided by the FSCS scheme (including the amounts covered and eligibility to claim) please refer to the FSCS website FSCS.org.uk. Please note only compensation related queries should be directed to the FSCS. Royal Bank of Canada (Channel Islands) Limited is not covered by the UK Financial Services Compensation Scheme.
RBC Europe Limited is registered in England and Wales with company number 995939. Its registered office is 100 Bishopsgate, London EC2N 4AA. RBC Europe Limited is authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority.
Royal Bank of Canada (Channel Islands) Limited (“the Bank”) is regulated by the Jersey Financial Services Commission in the conduct of deposit taking, fund services and investment business in Jersey. The Bank’s general terms and conditions are updated from time to time and can be found at https://www.rbcwealthmanagement.com/en-eu/terms-and-conditions. Registered office: Gaspé House, 66-72 Esplanade, St. Helier, Jersey JE2 3QT, Channel Islands. Deposits made with Royal Bank of Canada (Channel Islands) Limited in Jersey are not covered by the UK Financial Services Compensation Scheme. Royal Bank of Canada (Channel Islands) Limited is a participant in the Jersey Bank Depositors Compensation Scheme. The Scheme offers protection for ‘eligible deposits’ up to £50,000 per individual claimant, subject to certain limitations. The maximum total amount of compensation is capped at £100,000,000 in any 5 year period. Full details of the Scheme and banking groups covered are available on the Government of Jersey’s website http://www.gov.je/dcs or on request.
Investment services offered by the Bank are not covered by an investor compensation scheme as there is currently no such scheme operating in Jersey, however ‘eligible deposits’ held pursuant to investment services may be protected under the Bank Depositors Compensation Scheme described above – for more information see the Bank’s general terms and conditions. Some of the products that the Bank might recommend to you could be registered overseas and may be covered by a local compensation scheme. Your investment counsellor will provide you with the details of any overseas compensation schemes (where applicable) at the time of making an investment recommendation.
Copies of the latest audited accounts are available upon request from the registered office. ® / ™ Trademark(s) of Royal Bank of Canada. Used under licence.