Maybe we have to see where things land between real interest rates, inflation and wages growth by figuring out how to relax all of this cheating over time.
It is a less-spoken about flaw of the economic system we live in.
In a resource-constrained planet, we just cannot have too many people demanding too many resources. Under the current system, most people cannot consume above average resources except a few successful capitalists and systematic holders of power.
The fed is merely trying to reduce inflation but the society is structured in a way such that only the common man suffers inordinate costs to their lives. The select few people have entrenched their positions in society, thus they will never suffer extreme consequences in a fed induced downturn.
This systematic disproportionate affect is what causes unrest in society. If the wealthy lost money proportionate to their gamble and literally fell on the streets, shoulder to shoulder with the commoner, most people wouldn't have a problem with a fed downturn.
Isn't that exactly what happens when the stock values go down? That most don't end up on the street isn't a result of any magic tricks, but of diversifying investments. So if Amazon goes to shit during an upcoming recession/depression, I would assume that Bezos has more than enough money parked in real estate or other assets.
But the real problem is bailouts and cheap loans for the rich to cruise through the downturn while the ordinary person will likely lose their job and healthcare.
While I agree with the idea that government shouldn't give bailouts, I don't see how obtaining cheap loans when one has sufficient collateral to wager is a problem. Banks tried subprime lending before and the result was a global recession and a tighter grip on the financial industry.
The good news is that supply of a lot of products should ramp up. Now how and when these products are going to make it to the markets is another question.