Economics 101. Stagflation.

[icalical]

Okay, I have a question here.
In the past, let's say even a couple of centuries ago, humanity was still battling natural forces, unable to produce enough for everyone. If there was a drought, a flood, or something else, it was a catastrophe because the already limited resources got even more scarce, resulting in even more people dying. But starting from the industrial revolution, we did a major breakthrough which allowed to finally overcome the issue of not producing enough. Growth was very important to finally reach a point of abundance.
Now, the thing is, we've reached that point. Globally, we produce enough food to feed everyone, enough clothes, enough medicine. Perhaps not enough housing, but also a lot of vacant housing and all the resources needed to build more. But we're still stuck in thinking that slower growth is a bad thing, and no growth is terrible.
Isn't the issue no longer about how much we produce, but how we use and distribute what we produce? So doesn't it mean that we could, hypothetically, significantly improve the lives of people without any economic growth necessary? So couldn't at least some issues be resolved by focusing on redistribution and rethinking priorities?

You have a valid question here, but the condition you explain will only happened if the world is in ideal situation, but that's not the case, nothing is ideal. Unfortunately most of the world is run in capitalistic manner, everyone looking for profit, you need money to make money, the more money you have more money you can make. Thus result in bigger economic gap. People who own most of the housing/real estate is people with much capital, all they want is to get more profit, they will not sell lower, let alone give it for free. On the other hand, the people who need the housing doesn't have enough money that is needed to buy the house. Same happened in other commodity, seller want more profit, buyer don't have enough money, and those sellers won't sell it cheaper because they already have much money it's not like they need to sell it immediately, they can wait, they think have enough money to spend until they got the ideal price.

[Wind_FURY]

It's laughable that the people I talk to that remain in denial of the high-probability of Stagflation that's going to happen in many regions around the world.

In Europe, Christine Lagarde raised interest rates again, it's the tenth hike and she won't truly confirm when she'll stop. That will slow down most European economies. But in other parts of the world, China's Stimulus and the supply cuts for Crude Oil will cause higher fuel prices and therefore more inflation.

Stagflation will not merely be a narrative.

This. Interest rates affect many Europeans's family budgets in a negative fashion. Frankly, I'm confused how rising interest rates can fight inflation?

Because inflation has always been a monetary phenomenon, caused by money printing and too much government spending. When there's inflation, it's a symptom that there's too much supply of money in circulation. What the Central Bank does to control it is to tighten monetary policy.

People pay more for their mortgage so they need to earn more, charge more for their work or service and voila: we get more inflation! Fuel prices are soaring too, accelerating the inflation even more. Additionally, there are rumors of the next Covid wave coming soon... so hold on to your butts, gentlemen!

It's either the Central Bank tightens aggressively to cause the recession themselves, or inflation will cause one for the Central Bank. And it's better if the Central Bank causes one early while the people still have their savings. Plus because inflation will eat up people's savings sooner or later, and when this happens, the economy will slow down, BUT inflation will still be high = Stagflation.