We'll continue to see inflation that's somewhat stubborn. Our theme before the Middle East events was the Fed would be challenged to deliver expected cuts due to stubbornness. Now, with oil moving, we'll see mixed signals.

You're going to have to talk tough on inflation. The tougher you talk, the less you actually have to do. I don't see the Fed hiking anytime soon due to crosscurrents in the labor market.

You have to address that the oil spike pushes up inflation and pushes down growth, but you focus on the former, not the latter. The notion of easing significantly because of a downdraft in the economy—you've got to be careful with that timing.

That's the most interesting dynamic. A persistent $100 oil means a Federal Reserve very much on hold, not getting the disinflationary fact it was banking on. That scenario should be more seriously considered.

If oil collapses, it's risk-on; if it goes to $150, recession risk is prominent. But $100 persistence requires redoing the calculus.

It is doing both—reacting to oil on the growth and inflation sides. There's a healthy debate. The intermediate part of the curve looks most attractive.

It's premature to talk about Fed easing because the oil hit takes down growth, but inflation is above target. You have to reflect that in your timing.

It depends on where oil goes. To have a downdraft in growth, we'd need to see financial conditions really weaken. The equity market is the wild card—it would have to price in a significant earnings downdraft, shaking CEO and consumer confidence.

Those are the two strong foundations for the US economy. You'd have to see that foundation become rocky before talking about Fed easing.