Let me ask this: what would convince you?
Continued inflation. But absent that I'm going to stick with the obvious hypothesis that the external forcing from slightly overgenerous pandemic relief, late-pandemic shutdown of Shanghai and most of Chinese output for two months, (edit: also automotive/heavy industry production shortfalls due to "chip shortage") and the removal of one of the biggest petroleum and gas exporters from the world market did what you'd expect those things to do. You can go farther and look at what sectors are seeing inflation and what aren't and see more evidence for this, FWIW.
But yeah, if we come back in another 18 months and are still at 8% YoY inflation, then that hypothesis will have been wrong. Wanna take that bet?
> If [St. Louis Federal Reserve President James] Bullard has his way, the rate will continue rising to a range of 3.75%-4% by the end of the year. After starting 2022 near zero, the rate has now come up to a range of 2.25%-2.5%.[1]
While at the same time, fiscal policy is tightening. The "slightly" overgenerous Covid aid is over and the President is likely to get only a fraction of his $3.5 trillion dollar dream program.
And eventually OPEC will probably increase oil production, as Biden asked them to [2]; or Biden will change his stance on increasing US production. (BTW, Russia hasn't been removed from the market. Their exports have only fallen about 15% since the invasion [3], which is easily compensated for. The fact that producers haven't increased production has a lot to do with Biden.)
But a return to sound fiscal policy and practical oil policy won't reverse the damage of two years of inflation and slow or negative growth.
1: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/03/feds-bullard-sees-more-inter...
2: https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/03/energy/joe-biden-saudi-trip-o...
3: https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Russian-O...
So... you agree it's transitory? Why jump in to argue the opposite then? This sounds a little like a strawman, where you pretend that the "other side" meant "transitory" in the sense of weeks instead of a year or two. And no one did.
> won't reverse the damage of two years of inflation
And this is a misconception. Inflation isn't "damage", it's just a change in units. By definition (!), inflation numbers represent no change in total value of assets as a percent of macro numbers like GDP.[1] Your argument seems like it's deliberately trying to conflate the idea of inflation with "recession", when that's simply not correct.
[1] It's true that there is some disruption and relative movement of assets, though. If you're a bank who's written a bunch of dollar-denominated loans, inflation is very bad for you. If you're a credit card user carrying a balance, it's good. On the whole inflation represents a net transfer of wealth from loaners to borrowers, and in the modern US that's actually not entirely a bad thing.
No, transitory implies that it would go away on its own, without action by the government. I think it's going to end because the policies that I think caused it have ended. If the policies that were in place when it was first called transitory were still in place, then I would take the bet.
> Inflation isn't "damage"
I was referring to the decline in real wages, sky high house prices pricing out the working class, things like that. Not inflation per se.
The number was clearly just rhetoric. The point is that a very large number of people view data like this as "good news" for their team. So rather than have reasonable discussions about e.g. why this is likely just an echo of the covid response/recovery combined with geopolitical disruption to supply chains... we have a bunch of doomsayers in every thread yelling about how this is clearly not transient and how we're entering a new era of stagflation, etc... It's just tiresome.