You understand that the paragraph you quoted was a didactic illustration[1], not a description of reality, right? In fact inflation is sitting right at 3% right now, not at the 2% target but hardly very far off.
> The real question is Who is in charge here? If the Fed was, they would and could get in front of inflation and raise rates
They... did?
[1] Specifically of the situation where a change of target rate (which, again, is not happening) would be interpreted by the market as a loss of control.
Trailing 12 Mths Inflation: 3.2% (Headline) 3.8% (Core). In both cases, it's at least 50% above target. While a smaller gap than in recent years, it's still fairly sizable, all things considered.
Nothing about the current conditions are particularly abnormal. CPI was at 2.5-3 through the entirety of the dot com boom, higher than that still in the 80's, and of course between 1968 and 1982 it was almost entirely above 5%.
I really don't think you're considering all the things, all things considered.
As someone else pointed out at 3% , it's at least 50% above the target I don't see how someone can consider that small. Cherry picking historical data as a way to hand wave that fact is disengenious at best.
Even if for some reason you think 3% is not high, inflation is clearly starting to reverse which the fed has admitted its not gonna get better in the short term.
Contrast this to Volker who made the hard decision to raise rates well above inflation not once but twice.
What number do you consider "not small", and do to promise to reconsider your priors when it's reached?
The doom slinging on this issue really is getting ridiculous. People picked their rhetoric based on an assumption of 8-9% a year ago (for baldly partisan reasons) and are refusing to reconsider when it turned out the doom didn't arrive.
They have a target and even with all the raises they have done they cannot hit that target as banks are clearly under stress or they would raise more. This should come across as odd to you.
The historical norm has been the 2% benchmark and the onus should be on the fed to get there.
That's precisely doom slinging. "Banks are clearly under stress" is just ridiculous on it's face. And "historical norm" was literally and clearly refused upthread. What are you citing?
> The real question is Who is in charge here? If the Fed was, they would and could get in front of inflation and raise rates
They... did?
[1] Specifically of the situation where a change of target rate (which, again, is not happening) would be interpreted by the market as a loss of control.