If my macro columns have an overarching theme, I would say it is trying to avoid this (very common) type of thinking.

ie "Our model says that X causes Y, and given some real-world empirical correlation between the two that is good enough, no examination of real-world causal mechanisms is needed."

To take the specific case as an example: No, there is very little evidence that micromanaging interest rates affects inflation in any predictable fashion (we can posit some effects with relative accurancy, such as impact on asset prices, but going further has proven tricky).

In fact, the experience of the past decade proves that central banks have been very ineffective at what was supposed to be their main function. So where does the empirical case for using monetary policy to control inflation comes from? Mostly the 1970s-80s.

What's the problem with that? Even if we accept monetary policy was the key variable that tamed inflation (it's at least debatable), we are talking about a massive, sudden hikes that affected inflation by inducing recessions. This wasn't micromanagement, it was brute force.

So is there a reasonable empirical case for monetary policy being a "circuit breaker" that can crush inflationary spirals? IMO there is, and therefore this justifies SOME of the logic of the inflation-targetting central bank (we need a non-political body to inflict the pain).

Personally, I'd much rather we come up with different institutional systems to fulfill this function. But the point is, if these are trade-offs you consider necessary, then there is a reasonable case to argue them on an empirical basis.

But let's all be clear on what is being argued. We are very likely talking about undermining this recovery from a crisis, which policy has managed to make bearable for the less wealthy, by inducing a recession, in order to kill off a CPI raise tracable to specific bottlenecks.

Can it be argued that shortages (just as in the 1970s) will induce the kind of spiral that we need to kill off with a monetary circuit breaker? It can, but let's say openly that we are talking about creating unemployment. There is no evidence to expect gentle micromanagement.

Am I saying a small increase in rates will necessarily be bad? No. Who knows? But will it accomplish this magical goal of controlling inflation exactly right without causing pain? Where is the evidence of that? Through what channel?

ie Are we talking about the belief that even a small rate rise could kill the bull market in stocks and/or houses and via a wealth effect cool the economy? And why would this happen without more unemployment?

And would this reduction in demand fix the massive skew towards goods consumption v services that is making bottlenecks worse? Or is another channel posited? This is IMO why causal mechanisms have to be part of the argument, rather than assuming them away.