Not sure most economists actually missed inflation

Why We Missed On Inflation, and implications for monetary policy moving forward

I’ve also been wrestling with why we missed this high inflation and what we can learn going forward. To state clearly, I was solidly on “Team Transitory,” so I am not throwing stones. But many of us — those inside the Federal Reserve and the vast majority of outside forecasters — together made the same errors in, first, being surprised when inflation surged as much as it did and, second, assuming that inflation would fall quickly. Why did we miss it?¹

The reality is that nearly every economist that is not a liberal hack understood that spending trillions of dollars would lead to inflation. In fact, I am pretty certain that 99% of those of us who took econ 101 in college had a similar inkling that spending trillions of dollars would lead to inflation.

This particular author talks very specifically about the Phillips curve as if it lives in a vacuum. The theory of the Phillips curve is that unemployment is inversely related to inflation. The lower the unemployment, the higher the inflation. The higher the unemployment, the lower the inflation. This makes sense from a standpoint of wage supply and demand. Lower unemployment leads to higher wages (as it becomes a workers market). Higher unemployment leads to lower wages (as it becomes an employers market). Wages will have some effect on inflation, but mostly wages have an effect on wages.

So to rely solely on this model to determine not just wages, but the overall prices of all goods and services is simplistic and lazy. It also appears (in my humble opinion) to be an excuse of sorts. If you choose to not take into account how Government spending might affect inflation, then you are free to spend without any "hypothetical" or "projected" inflation. You simply close your eyes to the repercussions of your actions and then you can follow through without guilt. Better to do spend the money and then apologize later and claim you were wrong, then to spend the money with full knowledge of said repercussions.

All that being said, this author writes approximately 20 paragraphs along with graphs, notations, and bullet points all about inflation, the causes, the responses, and ideas moving forward. Not one of those paragraphs addresses Government spending. Not once in the article does he even bring it up as a possible cause or as part of the solution. He talks in general about "monetary policy" which is just government control of interest rates, but the idea of slowing down spending doesn't even register.

This is a challenge for economists inside and outside the Fed: Can we develop frameworks and tools to analyze and potentially forecast inflation outside of labor market and expectations channels? Specifically surge pricing inflation, but potentially others as well?

Apparently they cannot. It begs the question where did all of these people go to school? Where did they learn that the only thing that matters to inflation is the labor market? Where did they learn to ignore supply and demand of goods (not just labor). Where did they learn to ignored the literal cost of money and the mathematical concept of lowering of value of money when you literally print more. Where was this simple minded (and ability to ignore all else) indoctrinated into their collected minds? All of this feels like willing cognitive dissonance used in order to support the concept of illogical and fiscally unsound liberal economic theories.