[baron816]

> I am not an economist

Yeah, if you’re interested in this stuff, you should do some research. The Fed’s options aren’t 0% rates vs 15% rates. It’s going to raise rates .25% at a time. .25% is not much of a difference. It’ll move slowly and act cautiously.

The Fed, and other central banks have dealt with inflation many times before. And very effectively at that. Stocks could fall, but the stock market is not the economy, and the Fed has no mandate to prop up stocks.

[snuxoll]

> and the Fed has no mandate to prop up stocks.

Not true in the least anymore - retirement savings for a large percentage of our population are tied up in stocks thanks to the death of the pension. Asset and securities prices as a whole are a large concern for the fed when changing policy, as a result.

[chalst]

The Fed has a dual mandate: price stability and maximal sustainable employment. Nothing about supporting the value of investments.

https://www.chicagofed.org/research/dual-mandate/dual-mandat...

[thow-58d4e8b]

FED actually has three mandates, one of them almost never mentioned:

* employment

* price level

* moderate long term interest rates

[chalst]

The requirement to pursue moderate long-term interest rates is usually seen as part of price stability, since the level of long-term interest rates is determined by inflation expectations.

Cf. https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/what-economic-goals-does...

[mellavora]

You ask others to do some research, which implies that you have good sources on how "The Fed, and other central banks have dealt with inflation many times before. And very effectively at that"

I'd be interested to see them, especially any from the last 40 years (i.e. post-Volker).

For pre-Volker, I'm interested in your sources from the early-mid 70s, and the way inflation was "controlled" in the years immediately surrounding the release of the gold standard.