Warsh says the Federal Reserve is accommodative. I ask for whom? That is the question the Fed, Warsh, and Wall Street commentators seem determined to avoid. A further 100 basis points of tightening would probably not stop the AI investment boom. But the resilience of data centers, chipmakers, power producers, and hyperscale cloud firms is not proof that monetary policy is easy. It is proof that the Fed and its Wall Street interpreters are looking at the wrong economy. The AI buildout is not a conventional, credit-sensitive boom. It is a strategic arms race among the world’s most profitable companies, financed by vast internal cash flows, unparalleled access to capital markets, and a fear of technological irrelevance. Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, and their suppliers are not waiting for a friendlier federal-funds rate before committing billions to computing capacity, generation, transmission, networking, and semiconductors. They cannot afford to wait. The competitive and geopolitical costs of falling behind are greater than the incremental cost of capital. Electricity is the clearest example. Data centers require dependable power at scale, and that demand is not discretionary. Power plants, transmission lines, transformers, gas turbines, and backup systems must be built because the load is coming. Another percentage point of Fed tightening may dent valuations and delay marginal projects, but regulatory obstruction, permitting paralysis, and an inadequate grid pose the genuinely binding constraints. Warsh’s claim is not merely analytically weak; it is socially blind. Policy may be accommodative for the handful of giant firms Wall Street watches most closely. But the American economy is not a Bloomberg terminal. It is households confronting punishing mortgage rates, small businesses refinancing at sharply higher costs, would-be homebuyers shut out of the market, regional banks dealing with weaker loan demand, and commercial-property owners approaching refinancing cliffs. Warsh has adopted Wall Street’s habit of treating asset prices, narrow credit spreads, and capital expenditures by cash-rich monopolies as proxies for national economic health. That is a category error. Monetary restraint does not affect all sectors equally. It is crushing where outside financing is essential and far less relevant where investment is backed by internal cash flow, equity issuance, or strategic necessity. The AI buildout may prove disinflationary over time. It is capital-intensive, productivity-enhancing, and supply-expanding. But that does not absolve the Fed of its present failure. It has imposed prolonged restraint on the interest-sensitive economy while taking comfort in the spending of a narrow group of technology giants. Wall Street celebrates the boom because Wall Street is paid to celebrate it. The Fed should know better. Instead, it has allowed an elite investment cycle to become an excuse for indifference toward Main Street.