Having seen a small fraction of the tooling that the Fed uses behind the scenes, I am now convinced that there is a fairly big gap between the publicly available analysis + expertise v. the capabilities accessible to decision makers.

All decisions made by the Fed are made using comprehensive and sophisticated simulation tools, including tools that I'm under NDA and can't talk about. (However, I can say that the Fed is a customer, as that is publicly available information) Only a small fraction of this tooling is available publicly in the form of, FRB/US - https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/us-models-package.htm , FLARE - https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/test... and whatever ABBA is, https://search.usa.gov/search?affiliate=ofr&query=agent-base...

When the policy makers are running millions of simulations with real-time transaction data + inputs, what utility does all of the fretting and "analysis" in the media have?

The system has become extremely dense and opaque, and what is in the public realm seems to be decoupled from the policy making + expertise. At best, the public can learn from footnotes that the Fed intends to (and has) pursued simulations to track, forecast & calibrate its policies,

> 29 To facilitate analysis of settlement disruptions, systems may need to develop the capability to simulate credit and liquidity effects on participants and on the system resulting from one or more participant defaults, or other possible sources of settlement disruption. Such simulations may need to include, if appropriate, the effects of changes in market prices, volatilities, or other factors.

Tools are only as good as the people who use them. We need more transparency into the decision making aids, as well as greater access to help people understand how the economy is managed as a system.

But until then, all this media doom and gloom isn't helping.