What happens when the FERAL Reserve uses raising interest rates in an attempt to quash inflation? You guessed it: STAGFLATION. That is, a combination of economic stagnation (or even recession, if they keep raising it "until something breaks") and persistently high inflation. But if the only tool that have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail to them. And a quagmire thus results when tight monetary policy is kept in place well beyond its (very short) shelf life.
Contrary to Milton Friedman, the godfather of neoliberalism (who literally coined the term "neoliberalism" himself, along with the term "stagflation"), who claimed that "inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon", it is more accurately described as being (almost) always and everywhere a supply-side problem of goods and services, as Rodger Malcolm Mitchell notes. And the only way to cure it is to cure the shortages, which counterintuitively often requires increasing (and better targeting) federal spending to incentivize production of scarce goods and services, especially energy. There is clearly an extremely strong correlation (almost perfect, in fact) between energy prices (especially oil) and the general price level (CPI) of goods and services overall. While there is, contrary to popular opinion, very little to no correlation between inflation and federal deficit spending, or even the general money supply itself. (The general money supply consists of deficit spending of new money into existence plus banks lending new money into existence, though the latter is of course inflationary albeit only due to interest.)
(And let's not forget greedflation as well!)
At best, as a "break glass in case of emergency" measure, raising interest rates, especially to above the inflation rate, has a weak, very short-term benefit on fighting inflation, followed by a longer-term exacerbation and prolonging of inflation that seems to be unrelated but is in fact caused by it. After all, hiking interest rates is effectively a blunt and regressive tax that increases costs across the board, which are then passed onto the consumer in the form of...higher prices. And so on. That is, MORE INFLATION, in a vicious cycle like a yo-yo. The "cure" is in fact far worse than the disease, like applying leeches to cure anemia, as Mitchell would put it.
The plandemic-induced supply-chain issues have been resolved, and even the global geopolitical issues would should by now have less effect in the domestic oil and gas powerhouse that is the USA. Oil and gas prices are now down significantly stateside. The money supply and federal spending have shrank since then as well. And yet inflation, though much lower than its 9% peak in 2022, remains stubbornly above than 3% today. Could it be that keeping interest rates well above the current inflation rate is actually not only part of the problem, but now THE problem?
BINGO. So the FERAL Reserve would be wise to end Quantitative Tightening and cut interest rates yesterday from the current 5.25% to 3%, then to below 3% very shortly thereafter (within days or weeks). Then when inflation falls, cut it again to below the new inflation rate, and so on. All the way to zero if necessary. Failing that, the only thing that would end this quagmire is a severe enough recession to kill demand across the board, which will clearly do more harm than good. History certainly bears that out.
(It explains not only today's quagmire, but also the 1970s and 1980s in the USA and a fortiori in Canada. And it even at least partially explains the phenomenon of "chronic inflation" in various Latin American countries in the 1990s and beyond.)
Then, Congress must increase, not decrease, federal spending to cure the stagnation part, which is the other half of the stagflation. Yesterday.
And while we are at it, we should also phase out the scam known as "fractional reserve banking" (or more accurately, "fractional capital lending") by increasing the reserve requirement for private banks from the current 0% to 10% immediately, as it was before March 15, 2020, then very gradually raising it all the way to 100% over a number of years. (The only reason to do it gradually is to prevent markets from suddenly seizing up and causing a financial crisis.) And also either break up, nationalize, or tax heavily any banks that are "too big to fail" as well.
So what are we waiting for?
P.S. This argument does NOT apply to "creeping inflation" (i.e. consistently below 3%), as that level of inflation is easily controlled and adjusted for, promotes economic growth, and is actually beneficial on balance. Such low to moderate inflation is far better tolerated than risking even a small amount of deflation (negative inflation), which, at best, is VERY difficult to control and can all too easily become a vicious cycle and downward spiral into a full-blown depression or long-term "stagpression". In contrast, inflation only becomes net harmful on balance when it greatly exceeds 3%. Again, history bears this out.
.jpg)
