Trump also has an opportunity to radically reform and weaken the Federal Reserve, but it's unlikely that he will take any meaningful action to curb the source of inflation.

The following article was originally published by the Mises Institute. The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of Peter Schiff or SchiffGold.

A guilty verdict by US voters last November on inflation mongers will have no follow-through in terms of monetary regime change. Problem: the verdict was not delivered in sharp and comprehensive form. Instead, communication was largely via exit polls and other such surveys. The propagandists of the present monetary regime have been able to manipulate this messaging to the advantage of themselves and their clients.

Yes, in principle a damning indictment well-founded in evidence could have been served on the actual monetary regime – the so-called 2 per cent inflation standard. It has presided over a near 20 per cent loss of the dollar's internal purchasing power from the eve of the pandemic in 2019 to Election Day. Under a sound regime any initial loss would have been made good subsequently as the initial supply shock went into reverse.

The indictment should have included a key section on the regime's responsibility for asset inflation. The evident goods and services price inflation had been accompanied by rampant asset inflation -first during the pandemic itself (2020-21) and then into the extended monetary inflation beyond (2022 to present). The Fed had gone easy on its so-called monetary tightening program, implemented in 2022H2, once the supply side of the US and global economy had started to re-expand.