The goal of monetary policy is to manage inflation. Therefore, if there was hyperinflation, that would be a clear sign it was failing. It's hard to pick an exact number - but certainly inflation over 10% annualized would be a sign that it was not going well.
The CPI is the benchmark of the effectiveness of QE. I prefer the one without energy and food ("core"), myself, because the question I am concerned with is "What effect is the size of the money supply having on prices?" (Instead of, "how scarce has oil become?")
Bear in mind that high(er) inflation with very low nominal interest rates means you can have a 0 or negative real interest rate - which rather handily destroys debt, and encourages banks, companies, etc, to make riskier investments (because the money pile they sit on is steadily losing value).
Is combined fiscal + monetary policy working well? Of course not; there's a large output gap. The economy is not in good shape. I'm arguing that fiscal, not monetary, policy is to blame, along with the reluctance of large entities to deploy their money.
The CPI is the benchmark of the effectiveness of QE. I prefer the one without energy and food ("core"), myself, because the question I am concerned with is "What effect is the size of the money supply having on prices?" (Instead of, "how scarce has oil become?")
Bear in mind that high(er) inflation with very low nominal interest rates means you can have a 0 or negative real interest rate - which rather handily destroys debt, and encourages banks, companies, etc, to make riskier investments (because the money pile they sit on is steadily losing value).
Is combined fiscal + monetary policy working well? Of course not; there's a large output gap. The economy is not in good shape. I'm arguing that fiscal, not monetary, policy is to blame, along with the reluctance of large entities to deploy their money.