interest rates (and therefore slowing economic growth and driving up unemployment). I'm not familiar with one.

HooIstoptheheels said most of what I'd say below. He's right it's important to contain it quickly...otherwise it gets built into expectations and becomes somewhat programmatic in the economy via wage demands, rent adjustments, etc. That was one of the factors that made the 70s painful. Do you know who solved it (with a lot of pain in the process)? Jimmy Carter, by having the fortitude his predecessors didn't - he picked Volcker and stuck by him through a lot of pain. It was the right decision but cost him his job because Americans want short-term fixes.

The path that brought us here was set under the Trump Administration. He made massive, ill-advised tax cuts during an expansion, driving up the deficit. Then a pandemic hit and further spending plus a flood of liquidity were needed. Running massive deficits ultimately has consequences. But politicians are very good at laying those consequences at the feet of their successors, as is happening now.

There is a concept in economics called "full employment" -- it's a minimum unemployment rate beyond which labor markets become too tight and drive up wages. That level used to be seens as somewhere in the 4-5% range I believe. In recent years, we've experimented with policy driving unemployment lower and for a while inflation stayed low. Many economists believe that was due to globalization, immigration, technology-driven productivity, and relatively plentiful commodities. Some of those factors have reversed in recent years (more focus on US-based production, lower immigration, and tighter commodity markets (partly due to war). Absent these factors (which, by the way, exert downward pressure on wages too), we may need a somewhat higher "full employment" target.