Yesterday, I listened to some financial analysts discuss Fed policy on NPR. One remarked that there wasn’t much the Fed could do to bring inflation down this year, and that policymakers hoped for improvement in 2023.
I agree that Fed policy won’t have much impact on inflation this year. But that’s not because it cannot affect current inflation, rather because the Fed will likely choose not to do so. Thus far the Fed has not taken ANY significant steps to tighten monetary policy. They slightly raised their target interest rate, but with the equilibrium interest rate rising even faster, this effectively meant an easing of monetary policy. That’s why inflation expectations are rising, not falling.
If the Fed actually were to adopt a tight monetary policy, inflation would fall almost immediately. The misconception about long and variable lags is due to two factors:
1. The assumption that many prices are sticky.
2. The assumption that the Fed cannot affect the relative price of commodities.
The first assumption is true but misleading, while the second is false. When the Fed adopts a dramatic change in monetary policy, the relative price of commodities responds immediately, and so does the overall price level. While it’s true that flexible prices respond more quickly than sticky prices, the former are an important enough part of the CPI to have an immediate impact on inflation.

When the Fed adopts a very tight monetary policy, as in late 1929, NGDP falls sharply. Both prices and output fall, with the fall in commodity prices being much more rapid than the fall in stickier goods prices. Thus the relative prices of commodities (which are unusually sensitive to the business cycle) tend to fall with tight money. This means the Fed can affect relative prices in the short run (but not the long run.)
In April 1933, the US adopted an extremely expansionary monetary policy that caused rapid growth in NGDP. Both prices and output immediately rose at a rapid pace. Again, commodity prices rose much faster than the prices of other goods.
Today, a dramatic move toward tighter money would cause relative commodity prices to decline almost immediately. Headline inflation would fall substantially, even in 2022, although the decline in core inflation would be more gradual.
[As an aside, actual inflation would fall faster than measured inflation, as there are problems with the way the Fed measures things like housing costs. But even measured inflation would decline.]
The fact that inflation is not slowing right now is not an indication that the Fed’s tight money hasn’t yet begun to work; it’s a sign that the Fed has not yet adopted a tighter monetary policy. Let’s hope they do so in the near future. I’d like to see them bring NGDP growth down to no higher than 4% in 2022.
READER COMMENTS
Kenneth Duda
Mar 24 2022 at 1:16am
Great post, Scott. Why can’t we get your views prominently featured in FT, WSJ, NPR, NYT, etc.??
Also: what is your view of *why* the Fed isn’t tightening sufficiently? Do they think they’re tightening when they’re not really? Do they believe above-target inflation is better than risking a negative-demand-shock recession? Or something else?
Scott Sumner
Mar 24 2022 at 3:23pm
Throughout history, the Fed has almost always been unwilling to acknowledge (in real time) that it is causing macroeconomic disequilibrium. Because of this blind spot, they tend to initially assume that problems will just go away on their own. Thus they judged it a “supply problem”.
They also tend to be like the general fighting the last war—overreacting based on what happened the previous cycle. They reacted to too little stimulus in 2008-16 by offering too much this time around.
MarkLouis
Mar 25 2022 at 8:47am
This illustrates a fundamental asymmetry within the Fed. “Fighting the last war” 2008-16 resulted in a mild inflation undershoot. However, in 2020+ it has resulted in a sharp inflation overshoot, leaving the overall price level well above trend. If overshoots can be expected to be more severe than undershoots, the Fed will need to target an inflation (or NGDP) rate that is actually below what they hope to achieve in reality. How should central banks address this?
Scott Sumner
Mar 25 2022 at 11:46am
“How should central banks address this?”
Start doing what they say they are going to do.
MarkLouis
Mar 25 2022 at 1:24pm
I think we’re well past the point that the electorate can ever trust the Fed to do that. I don’t have the answer, but hope is no longer a strategy.
Oscar Cunningham
Mar 24 2022 at 4:47am
Is this why last year people were complaining that the Fed money printing was only causing ‘asset inflation’? Assets prices are just more flexible. And now the other shoe is dropping.
Scott Sumner
Mar 24 2022 at 3:25pm
I think the asset price inflation is more due to the long term downward trend in interest rates. BTW, I don’t think that downward trend has ended, although rates will probably rise for a few years.
Harold Cockerill
Mar 24 2022 at 6:10am
Could it be that government has an interest in there being a significant period of inflation?
Capt. J Parker
Mar 24 2022 at 9:49am
These gentlemen say yes, central banks will yield to governments pressure to monetize growing debt levels: https://www.suerf.org/docx/f_fa99ccdbea597263a88f27075bd6eb49_17385_suerf.pdf
Scott Sumner
Mar 24 2022 at 3:26pm
“Could it be that government has an interest in there being a significant period of inflation?”
If so, then it’s pretty hard to explain 1991-2020. (Unless you mean they have a significant interest in 2% inflation, in which case I’d agree.)
Harold Cockerill
Mar 24 2022 at 7:56pm
I was thinking more in the context of the past few years with the massive increase in deficit spending. We have an (previously) unimaginable debt on the books and paying it off with worth less dollars might be attractive to some.
Scott Sumner
Mar 25 2022 at 11:47am
Why would the Fed care about the Treasury’s debt problem? I find that pretty implausible.
MarkLouis
Mar 25 2022 at 1:25pm
It’s equally implausible that this stage that the Fed is just slow to realize we have an inflation problem. There is clearly something affecting the central bank reaction function that we cannot currently identify.
Capt. J Parker
Mar 25 2022 at 3:56pm
Charles Goodhart and Manoj Pradhan feel exactly the opposite.
Central bank is discussed starting 41 minute mark.
Thomas Lee Hutcheson
Mar 26 2022 at 7:52am
“Fed has not taken ANY significant steps to tighten monetary policy. They slightly raised their target interest rate, but with the equilibrium interest rate rising even faster, this effectively meant an easing of monetary policy.”
It would be helpful to translate this into operational terms. What should the Fed have done when?
Spencer Bradley Hall
Mar 26 2022 at 10:19am
AD = M*Vt where N-gDp is a subset and proxy. To tighten, the FED either sops up M or represses Vt. Reducing Vt tends to diminish R-gDp over inflation, hence we get a recession.
The problem is that upward and downward deviations in the N-gDp trend rate can’t be quickly closed after the FED loses control. Deviations in N-gDp tend to metastasize, accumulating in greater disequilibria over longer time periods. The 4th qtr. 2008 is prima facie evidence. Targeting N-gDp is even more important than people have realized.
To reduce AD, you reduce M, you impose reserve requirements against all transaction type accounts. You reimpose withdrawal restrictions on savings accounts. You don’t permit vault cash to count towards legal reserves.
The FED is operating without a rudder or an anchor.
Spencer Bradley Hall
Mar 26 2022 at 10:42am
Powell cited 1965, 1984 and 1994 as examples where the FED corrected the economy without a recession.
But Powell has steered the economy in the opposite direction as was done in 1965. In 1965, M was constrained, while Vt was accelerated.
https://seekingalpha.com/instablog/7143701-salmo-trutta/5265714-1966-interest-rate-adjustment-act
https://seekingalpha.com/instablog/7143701-salmo-trutta/5265717-1966-interest-rate-adjustment-act-ii
Spencer Bradley Hall
Mar 27 2022 at 10:24am
James Tobin: “By definition of velocity, GDP equals the stock of money times its velocity.”
A double-tongue. There’s income velocity, and there’s transaction’s velocity. Technology is accelerating Vt. The impoundment of savings in the payment’s system is decelerating Vi.
Comments are closed.