The Fed has two mandates -- its "dual mandate":
1. Control inflation.
2. Manage unemployment.
They are, unfortunately, directly at odds. Fighting inflation tanks the economy (that's what Paul Volker did in the late 1970s, to tackle "stagflation", and Jimmy Carter's 2nd term hopes), and promoting employment tends to hot up inflation.
Over the past 8 years, the Fed (and other central bankers) have dumped unholy amounts of liquidity into the global economy. That is, they've been "printing money", except that the Fed doesn't actually print money, it simply wills it into existence. It's done this after reducing its own lending rates (the prime rate) to effectively zero wasn't sufficiently stimulating the economy.
It's slightly more complex than that: the Fed distributes that money by buying "assets" from major banks -- it's an auction process, but the goal of the Fed isn't to get valuable assets[1], only to manage how that money's introduced to the economy and keep tabs on its value by way of inflation, as I understand it.
For whatever the reasons, inflation hasn't actually been a problem, though the reasons why are elusive, and several alternatives have been suggested:
1. The money's gone into financial instruments, including stocks and real estate. The rise in major stock market indices and the Fed's balance sheet (its money supply injections) pretty much exactly track one another.
2. It's gone into offshore tax havens. Last numbers I've seen are about $7 trillion from the US, and $25-30 trillion globally, from various sources. The ICIJ and The Guardian have run a multi-year expose on off-shore investment havens, and other financial sources have reported on this.
3. Chasing other investments. Silicon Valley VC money comes from somewhere, and much of it chases start-ups whose ultimate valuation is either advertising potential, or buy-it-to-kill-the-threat-to-us (WhatsApp's purchase by Facebook). Advertising's terrifying because a tremendous amount of it is financial services -- about 40% in "FIRE" industries: finance, insurance, and real estate. Pull the plug on easy money, and all three of those tailspin.
Which gets us to why fighting inflation is seen as such a bad thing. Usually the argument given is "inflation hurts those with fixed incomes", by which most people think of the elderly on social security or pensions. But we've learned how to fix that: you index those systems to inflation, hence SSI's COLA adjustment -- the cost-of-living factor that boosts Social Security payments. Who really get hurt by inflation are those who are holding dollar-denominated assets. Lenders.
That's banks, and holders of bonds (debt), which aren't themselves inflation adjusted. If you've got a home mortgage, inflation is your best friend, because it reduces the amount of your debt (in real terms) while your income increases. Banks, on the other hand, hate that, because their assets (your mortgage) falls in value.
So: the Fed is raising rates to stem inflation fears, even though inflation's been fairly much a non-player. Probably because banks and other lenders / bondholders are getting nervous. And to give itself more maneuvering room.
There's a whole bunch more in this, such as what money "really" is (in a functional / role sense, not the boring old fiat-vs-gold-backed debate), what, whether, why, and how economic growth is, can be extended, is justified, and is based on, and whether or not inflation is an unavoidable element of a collapsing economic system. On that last, the fate of the (specie-based) Roman denarius is quite interesting.
But stay tuned. Things might get interesting.
________________________________
Notes:
1. Told to me directly by a regional Fed branch president in a public Q&A.