Trump Ally's Wild Inflation Fix Gets Ripped Apart by Economists

Alright, so picture this: Donald Trump, potentially back in the White House, and a name being floated for his Treasury Secretary is Scott Bessent. Now, Bessent, a hedge fund veteran, has recently unveiled his grand plan to tackle inflation, and let me tell you, it's certainly got people talking – though perhaps not in the way he intended. The financial world, from seasoned economists to market gurus, is collectively scratching its head, and in some cases, openly scoffing at what many are calling an utterly bizarre and frankly dangerous proposal.

What exactly is Bessent proposing? Well, it sounds almost like something out of a financial thriller, but here it goes: He suggests the Federal Reserve, our central bank, should essentially buy up long-term bonds directly from the U.S. Treasury. Then, with that fresh cash, the Treasury would turn around and use it to repurchase its own shorter-term bonds from the open market. The big idea, apparently, is to shorten the overall maturity of our national debt, which Bessent believes would somehow reduce interest payments and cool down inflation. Sounds... intricate, right?

But here’s the kicker: practically no one else in the financial universe thinks this is a good idea. In fact, the reaction has been swift, brutal, and overwhelmingly negative. Jason Furman, who advised Obama and is a respected economist, minced no words, calling the plan "truly bizarre" and warning it would just be "massively inflationary." Ouch.

Think about what's actually happening here. Bessent's scheme essentially involves the Fed creating money (or at least, liquidity) to fund the government's debt operations. Economists widely refer to this as "monetizing the debt" – a huge no-no because it historically leads to soaring inflation. It's like trying to put out a fire with gasoline, you know? It might look like you're doing something, but the outcome is just going to be worse.

The critiques just kept coming. Peter Tchir, a market strategist, couldn't help but liken it to a "snake eating its own tail," which, frankly, paints a pretty vivid picture of the circular, self-defeating nature of the proposal. Others have been even harsher, describing it as a "doomsday machine" for the economy. It’s hard to imagine a more damning label, really. The core problem, as many see it, is that Bessent seems to misunderstand fundamental economic principles, blurring the lines between monetary and fiscal policy in a way that’s simply not healthy for a stable economy.

What makes this even more troubling is that Bessent isn't just some fringe economist; he’s a significant figure within Trump's orbit, someone actively being considered for a role that profoundly impacts our nation’s financial health. The very notion that such a plan could even be contemplated by a potential Treasury Secretary raises serious questions about the economic stewardship a future Trump administration might offer. It's not just about a bad idea; it’s about a potentially destabilizing one coming from a place of significant power.

So, while Bessent might believe he's found a clever workaround for our economic woes, the consensus from pretty much everyone else is clear: this particular "solution" is far more likely to exacerbate our problems than solve them. It's a stark reminder that when it comes to managing the world’s largest economy, wild, unconventional ideas might generate headlines, but they rarely generate confidence – or sound policy.