The premise of one analytical argument is categorical: the notion of "Fed independence" is "thoroughly preposterous," and the scholarly class invoking that concept is running a pretense. The argument's core claim is that these scholars want no genuine central bank independence at all.
What the argument says
The accusation is about revealed preference. Academics and commentators who position themselves as defenders of Fed autonomy are, per this analysis, not seeking the thing they name. Their pretense concerns the impossibility of independence. The actual position, the argument holds, is that they do not want it.
The source names no individual scholars and references no specific papers or institutional decisions. The argument operates entirely at the level of categorical assertion about a class of academic actors.
The analytical gap
A claim about revealed versus stated preference typically requires a supporting record. No such record appears here. No figures or filings on academic opinion toward central bank autonomy are cited. The charge that the scholarly class wants no independent Fed is the argument's starting point, not its conclusion. It is stated, not demonstrated.
Note to editors: The source material consists of a headline and a single-sentence summary with no named individuals, quantitative data, institutional filings, or dated events. Per house rules, this piece reflects only what the source contains. Expanding to 350-550 words would require facts the source does not supply.