Fighting Inflation with Higher Interest Rates is Totally Counterproductive
For nearly a century, central banks have relied on one dominant prescription to fight inflation: raise interest rates. The theory is straightforward. Higher borrowing costs discourage spending and investment, reducing demand and eventually slowing price increases.
While this approach may have worked reasonably well in the past, today’s economy is fundamentally different. Applying the same monetary formula developed in the past century by Irving Fisher is obviously creating more problems than it solves. In many cases, raising interest rates has become a counterproductive way to fight inflation.
- The first and most obvious consequence is the impact on government finances. As interest rates rise, the U.S. Treasury must refinance its enormous public debt at increasingly expensive rates. The result is an explosion in annual interest payments, which now exceed $1 trillion. Those payments are in fact a direct injection of additional liquidity into the economy while simultaneously widening the federal deficit.
U.S 10-Y Treasury Yields Five Year Chart as of 16th of July 2026
Ironically, a policy designed to reduce inflation is contributing to larger government spending through higher debt-servicing costs. Instead of easing inflationary pressures, excessively high interest rates may actually reinforce them through this fiscal channel.
- Consumers also bear a heavy burden. Modern households depend far more on credit than previous generations. Credit cards, auto loans, and consumer financing have become an integral part of everyday life. When the Federal Reserve raises interest rates, millions of Americans see the interest on their credit card balances climb to 20% or more.
Many families attribute their declining purchasing power entirely to inflation, when in reality a significant portion of the financial pressure comes from soaring interest payments.
- Businesses suffer as well. Higher interest rates increase the cost of financing, while the same capital could be dedicated to investment, expansion, innovation, and research. Every additional dollar spent on interest is a dollar that cannot be invested in productive activity.
A recent example is SpaceX, which issued debt carrying a yield of approximately 6.65%. Given the company’s negative cash flow, investors naturally require a risk premium. However, if the Federal Reserve’s policy rate were closer to 2% rather than current levels, the company’s borrowing costs would be at least half their current level. The extra interest payments would instead be directed toward research, development, hiring, that would strengthen long-term economic growth.
In the current race for AI, that requires heavy investments, the Fed should lower the financing burden on U.S companies. Every additional percentage point of interest represents billions of dollars transferred from productive investment to debt servicing. Money that could finance AI chips, data centers, engineers, research laboratories or new factories instead goes to creditors.
The U.S cannot simultaneously declare China its principal strategic competitor while maintaining a monetary policy that systematically makes capital more expensive for American businesses than for their Chinese rivals, that benefit from much lower rates. The Fed may intend to fight inflation, but it is also making it more costly for American companies to invest in the industries that will determine economic leadership over the decade. The Fed may believe it is fighting inflation, but it is simultaneously increasing the cost of winning the AI race.
Perhaps the greatest weakness of relying on high interest rates is that much of today’s inflation originates from supply-side shocks that monetary policy simply cannot fix.
How does raising interest rates reduce the price of oil when energy prices are driven by geopolitical tensions such as the war with Iran?
How does raising interest rates lower egg prices when shortages stem from productivity issues in the poultry industry?
How does raising interest rates lower the prices of wheat, corn, or cocoa when inflation is due to droughts, floods, or other climate-related events?
How does it reduce insurance premiums that are rising because natural disasters have become more frequent and more costly?
In each of these cases, higher interest rates are totally inefficient to address the underlying cause of inflation. Instead, they merely increase financing costs across the economy while leaving supply constraints largely unchanged.
A more effective strategy would be to fight inflation where it actually originates. Governments possess fiscal tools that can be deployed with much greater precision than broad monetary tightening. Temporary subsidies, targeted tax relief, incentives for increased production, strategic investment in critical industries, and, in exceptional circumstances, carefully designed price controls can address specific inflationary pressures without unnecessarily slowing the entire economy.
For example, if geopolitical tensions cause oil prices to spike, temporarily subsidizing fuel or reducing fuel taxes is likely to be a far more direct and effective response than raising interest rates across the entire economy. Similarly, boosting domestic agricultural production is a better solution to food inflation than making mortgages, business loans, and credit cards more expensive.
The Fed should therefore focus on reducing the financing burden on both the federal government and the private sector. Maintaining interest rates closer to 2% would significantly lower debt-servicing costs, support productive investment, and allow fiscal authorities to intervene more effectively with targeted measures when inflation arises from specific sectors.
The doctrine of fighting inflation through higher interest rates was developed by Irving Fisher nearly a century ago, in an era with very different financial institutions, consumer behavior, and sources of inflation. Credit cards did not exist. Household debt was far lower. Global supply chains, geopolitical energy shocks, and climate-related disruptions were not defining features of inflation.
The modern economy requires modern solutions. Rather than relying almost exclusively on higher interest rates, policymakers should recognize that today’s inflation often demands targeted fiscal responses. Persisting with an outdated monetary framework risks imposing unnecessary costs on governments, businesses, and households while failing to address the real drivers of rising prices.
Supporters of high interest rates often argue that they are unavoidable whenever inflation rises. Yet international experience suggests otherwise.
Switzerland has repeatedly maintained policy interest rates close to 1%, or even below zero in previous years, despite being exposed to many of the same global shocks affecting other economies. Switzerland imports energy, is affected by fluctuations in oil prices, and faces the same geopolitical uncertainties. Yet the Swiss National Bank has generally preferred to tolerate modest inflation rather than impose unnecessarily high financing costs on households, businesses, and the government.
This illustrates an important principle: not every inflation shock requires an aggressive monetary response. When inflation is primarily imported through energy prices or supply-chain disruptions, forcing the entire economy to pay dramatically higher borrowing costs creates more economic damage than the inflation itself.