> Let's say I have a goal of running a marathon, so I decide to start jogging every day. Is my daily jogging a side-effect of my goal to run a marathon?
You can't run a marathon without your daily jogs. Inflation can be lowered without spiking unemployment. It's unlikely. Hence the Fed's messaging. But until recently the Fed forecasted a soft landing, i.e. growth and low unemployment amidst rising rates and falling inflation.
Better analogy: engine temperature. You're driving and keeping an eye on the thermometer. You see the temperature is low and so feel comfortable accelerating. The goal is getting to your destination faster. The low temperature lets you accelerate, which in turn raises the temperature. But raising the engine temperature wasn't the point. It reverses cause and effect to say your goal was to raise engine temperature. It wasn't. Engine temperature was simply a limiting factor you were paying attention to.
Using analogies is always dangerous because they're never going to be a perfect fit. But the difference between your engine analogy and the federal reserve's actions is that anemic economic growth and high unemployment is not a side effect. In your engine analogy, adding more gas and air into the engine increases the amount combustion. It's the combustion that increases speed, so in a sense increase combustion is a goal. Released heat is just a by product of the reaction. In the economy, the amount of economic activity and the amount of available labor are what drive prices, so these things are the combustion in the piston, not a byproduct.
> amount of economic activity and the amount of available labor are what drive prices
The relationship is sufficiently complex to permit e.g. falling unemployment, falling (not negative) wage growth, falling (including negative) growth and falling inflation. It's not a deterministic system.
> in a sense increase combustion is a goal
No, it's not, because the goal--reaching the destination quickly--would be accomplished equally well in an electric car with no combustion. That's the difference between a goal and an effect.
Look, I agree that theoretically it’s possible to lower inflation while keeping unemployment low. But the Fed is looking for a causal effect. They want higher unemployment because that will balance the labor supply and reduce wage growth. That’s what the Fed has said. The fact that they’re looking for a causal effect in raising unemployment means the engine analogy is not valid. There is no causal relationship between engine temperature and speed.
I think you’re falling for the no true Scotsman fallacy. We started this conversation talking about whether or not the Fed’s goal is higher unemployment. I presented an argument, in the Fed’s own words, that they plan on lowering inflation by weakening the labor pool. And your response is “that’s not really a goal.” I disagree and, and I don’t see a productive way forward for this conversation. At the very least, you should accept that this is a valid interpretation of the Fed’s own words, and not just some conspiracy theory being peddled.
You can't run a marathon without your daily jogs. Inflation can be lowered without spiking unemployment. It's unlikely. Hence the Fed's messaging. But until recently the Fed forecasted a soft landing, i.e. growth and low unemployment amidst rising rates and falling inflation.
Better analogy: engine temperature. You're driving and keeping an eye on the thermometer. You see the temperature is low and so feel comfortable accelerating. The goal is getting to your destination faster. The low temperature lets you accelerate, which in turn raises the temperature. But raising the engine temperature wasn't the point. It reverses cause and effect to say your goal was to raise engine temperature. It wasn't. Engine temperature was simply a limiting factor you were paying attention to.