>

Also, one thing the poster above didn't say, economic understanding in the 20s and 30s vs now is completely different. We understand so much more than we did back then.
This isn't really a fair comparison.  To be blunt the EU was intertwined with events in Ukraine and doesn't have the luxury that the US does with having a capable domestic natural gas system that can deliver its energy needs.  While the EU was scrambling to try and backfill supplies during the spring and summer.  The environments were different and you just can't compare the two based on that since the US didn't nearly have the inflationary pressures that the EU was dealing with. >

True, there are many differences between the factors for inflation that the two banks were needing to take into consideration for strategy. However, I still think it's useful to draw a comparison, especially considering that both countries were experiencing similar inflation pre-war. I think the fact that there's differences means there's more we can learn from a discussion like this. 
I hope more people will bring the differences up in this discussion. >

Going to disagree.  it actually isn't useful to compare here.  If you want to isolate this to 2021 then I would agree.  But 2022 has way to many other factors that makes any useful comparison impossible. >

Agree to disagree, but you seem knowledgeable on this so I hope to find you in some of the discussions that might happen on this post :) >

The other thing being completely ignored is the solvency of the southern countries.  Aggressive rate hikes could plunge them into a recession that could jeopardize the EU as a whole. >

True.  High inflation is the borrower’s friend since future payments will be worth less in real terms.  Slowing inflation by raising interest rates is a double whammy for net debtors.  This is made even worse if any debts are payable in dollars, or any currency other than Euros, seeing as the Euro has fallen so significantly. >

I think the Fed is doing a better job but I think they both waited way too long to start raising rates.
The economic signs of an overheated economy have been in place since 2021 but both the Fed and the ECB were likely worried about raising rates during the pandemic.
As a result, to try to keep inflation in check both are raising interest rates dangerously quickly.
The fed was at least smart enough to spread out the rate hikes a bit. >

Sure, I thought the same about the delayed timing, but that thought was based on assuming avoiding inflation is the priority.  
Let's face it, there was far greater risk to the economy than inflation. Massive unemployment would be a worse outcome than inflation, and that's the trade-off that was knowingly made. >


Massive unemployment would be a worse outcome than inflation

Politically speaking, elevated unemployment is a hugepolitical loser for an incumbent administration... with those unemployed and seeking work.  Inflation is a lesser problem, but for every voter.  One that jumps towards the top of every single voter's mind.  
I think by Fall of last year the Fed had ample information to feel really good about the strength of the job market.  And they also had ample data to suggest inflationary pressures were out of hand.  And its not like there wasn't plenty of talk in the financial industry about the need to shift policy.  
I think the Fed has done a pretty good job trying to get on top of this, once they started.  But I do think they were late to the start. >

Thats comparing apples to oranges. Both have differant types and causes for inflation. >

Truth. Still, inflation arises. >

A central bank had a twin mandate to help the economy and employment but also to fight inflation.  The economic picture in the US is better - more hiring still.  The EU is hit by much higher energy prices that are supply / war related.  With a greater hit to the economy,  it makes more sense to have lower interest rates.  Halting inflation would mean making a substantial recession, which is bad. >

Neither really. Inflation is a factor of limited capacity in the economy. Interest rates can't really fix that. The good thing about raising rates is some of the most obvious scams finally die off. >

Neither is tackling inflation.  Both are trying to give the impression that is their priority, but they are maintaining the negative real interest rates that are imperative to preventing government debt crises.
Governments addressed Covid with the WW2 playbook.  Spending and money creation were nearly identical to that era when adjusted for GDP, and so was resulting inflation and muted interest rate response.  
Inflation regressively passes the cost on to citizens, so the government agenda can move on. >

What do you mean by "they are maintaining the negative real interest rates"? What are those, and how are they maintaining them? >

They mean the actual Fed Funds rate is less than inflation, so the "real rate" is -2.85% - -3.05% (the current Fed Funds rate minus 7.1% inflation). That does ignore inflation is trending down however and we will likely be back to positive real rates by March. >

The fed funds rate has nothing to do with the Federal Reserve strategy though: it’s the rate other banks trade with each other overnight. >

When the Fed "raises rates", it's raising the Fed Funds rate. It's pretty central to their inflation strategy. >

What is really amazing is that Ben Bernankei admitted the fed was at fault for the great depression of the 1930s and the 2008 recession. 
It amazes me that our society acts like the federal reserve have our best interest in their hearts. And that it isn't a deliberate transfer of wealth from the bottom up. The pentagon is missing another 3 trillion dollars again and everyone acts like that is normal. I wish people would wake up. Especially those who support more regulations and higher taxes. >


What is really amazing is that Ben Bernankei admitted the fed was at fault for the great depression of the 1930s and the 2008 recession.

Do you have an article about that?  I'd like to read it.