No, that's exactly how they look at it. They see it as they can't really change supply but they can lower demand by removing all purchase power and they look at the recession as a necessary goal to tame inflation.

> ... and they look at the recession as a necessary goal to tame inflation.

Necessary goal, or necessary evil? I'd really like to see a citation for the Fed explicitly targeting a recession. I used to work with a former senior Fed economist (though, in the capacity I worked with him, he was researching market microstructure, not macroeconomics), and I have another friend who currently works at the Fed. In thhe past 3 rate hike cycles, I've heard lots of talk about the difficulty of a "soft landing" in taming inflation without tanking the economy.

Everything I've heard this tightening cycle has praised the near-miracle soft landing they seem to have achieved.

Taken as a control theory problem, the economy has very noisy measurements, heavy hysteresis, and a relatively long lag for all of the effects of rate changes to ripple through the economy. My understanding is that under-shooting the landing can result in long-term inflation psychologically taking root, creating more problems in the future, so the Fed tends to err on the side of triggering a recession.

I've only read the full minutes of a handful of Fed meetings, so maybe I've missed something. I'm prepared to have my mind changed, but I'm highly skeptical a recession has ever been a goal rather than a regrettable side-effect.

Frankly I think you're answering your own question when you say "the Fed tends to err on the side of triggering a recession." Yea that's the point, maybe it would be less offensive to say they view their job as creating as mild of a recession as possible to bring down inflation.

In response to your direct request, here's Powell talking about a "soft or softish" landing specifically calling it a recession that is not severe. https://youtu.be/Ue1aDKboQcQ?si=HRcPcJFT22kYxYQT

I find the whole back patting themselves on a "soft landing" a total joke and offensive to the American tax payers. They create so much pain, especially to those without net worth, in the name of stalling inflation when inflation is directly caused by money supply. They created the problem not with 0 interest rates but by literally injecting cash into the economy, they lied about it's effect on inflation and then they could have sat on their hands and inflation would have evened out without destroying everyone's bank accounts. They really don't need play God on the economy, it creates more problems than it solves

That video link begins with "I believe there is a path to a soft or soft-ish landing", followed by a definition of a soft landing as unemployment not going up too much.

It seems he's pretty clearly describing what he believes is possible, not describing what he wants absent constraints imposed by reality.

It's pretty easy to play armchair economist, as the first-order effects of Fed intervention during COVID were pretty painful for a lot of middle- and lower-class Americans, at least those who would have kept their jobs even without intervention. Which models are you using and what do your models show the unemployment rate would have hit without any Fed intervention? How long would the COVID recession lasted without intervention? The question isn't "Were the Fed's actions harmful?" the question is "Were the Fed's actions less harmful than available alternatives?"