I explained the basis for my reasoning about the upper bound, on banks, of the impact of the higher effective federal funds rate. I concluded that the size of the impact "shouldn't matter." I don't see how that translates to "very strong opinions" on the topic. Instead, it's an invitation for others to directly address and correct the error in logic.
You, for your part, are conveying very strong opinions on the topic and asserting that you understand it well. But, the first time around, you made a cryptic reply that focused more on calling me ignorant [1] than on pinpointing the error in my model.
When I referred to your superior understanding, that was not sarcasm; that was taking your assertion at face value. I recognize that others may know more about this. One implication of having superior understanding is the ability to make better contributions contributions to the discussion than calling someone ignorant [1] and asserting that a small RoR matters because leverage.
But rather than address the specific error your believe exists, you made an orthogonal claim, obscured with jargon you didn't define (like "ON").
To clarify, my original assertion was that, even if banks had to absorb the entire extra cost of the higher interest rates, that would still be small compared to their return to capital. Do you disagree with that? Is there another mechanism by which the higher borrowing costs translate into higher costs throughout the economy? If so, what is that mechanism?
If you have the superior understanding you claim to, then answering those questions is how you can refute the model I presented, and it should be easy with such an understanding. But telling me that your work buddies think I'm stupid -- that does not add to the discussion.
[1] "Your last sentence leads me to believe that you are unfamiliar with the normal operations of firms involved in these markets." Later, you said, "If I said at work what you posted about 36bps not mattering I would get fired on the spot. "