@Scott Passman I think you may be spot on with:
"Perhaps stagflation is a better term as opposed to pure inflation since it seems like inflation will occur but with less spending/economic growth"
Agree 100% we have a super complex monetary system, and i don't believe for a second that even the fed fully understands it. So many cross current forces at play, demographics(older western pop. buying less stuff), offshore banking system,shadow banking system, private equity, reserve currency status, the credit cycle(business cycle) oil price inputs, etc.
Also agree that supply/demand will push prices where they naturally want to be, but i am making a case against MASSIVE inflation, at least in short term (3yrs?) Many see fed "printing money" headlines and default to fears of inflation when it is far from binary, like your stagflation idea.
I enjoyed the article, but it did support my thinking that all the "stimulus" since 2012 lets say, is reactionary to deflationary forces or threats which is the mortal enemy of fiat currency. ( hence the fed 2% inflation target)
I think we agree that the tip of the spear is the banks. That all money and credit needs to be generated on banks balance sheets, in other words, banks (real people who run them) have to be willing to lend those printed fed dollars into the real economy to increase the money supply to chase fewer goods and services, in the real economy, which i.m.o. has bifurcated from the financial economy.
My point is when you hear fed printing billions via q.e. all that new money goes directly into bonds (major bond market support) or as reserves on primary dealers balance sheets. New to the scene is fed buying equities, which was illegal up until g.f.c.2. This is also japanification of our economy as now the bank of japan owns 50% of their stock market!
Now fiscal stimulus, Govt programs to lets say rebuild infrastructure, could def be a hugh driver of inflation as new money gets put to work in the real economy! But again if govt stimulus is just to replace lost productivity, = zero net benefit
Where are we in the cycle?