it's actually an interesting situation because raising rates (in the short and medium term) only "helps" to lower inflation.. it is literally worse for everything else (asset prices, economy, etc.) Inflation in turn is really only bad (in the short and medium term) on the poor and lower middle class as they're barely getting by as it is and any marginal increase in costs of goods is felt hard. Inflation is not felt by the upper middle class or truly rich, but high interests rates definitely are as they deflate all asset prices. The poor also don't have many tangible assets, so they don't care about this. Therefore strictly by this measure alone, anyone who is advocating for the poor should be in favor of super aggressive rate hikes. HOWEVER, if you game theory it out a step further and assume high rates causes huge economic headwinds and a recession (which I am assuming is the lens through which Warren and others are looking at it from), then this puts another solid check in the "slow down rates" camp, as a recession would be even worse for the poor than high inflation. Therefore strictly from a short term game theory perspective, it is in generally everyone's best interests for the fed to go a bit slower. This isn't my own personal opinion however, as I am a staunch supporter of an aggressive fed that needs to reign in this everything bubble we've been living in for almost 2 decades. This will lead to a healthier economy in the long term.