Quote

The future path of the federal funds rate is necessarily uncertain because economic activity and inflation will likely evolve in unexpected ways. For example, no one can be certain about the pace at which economic headwinds will fade. More generally, the economy will inevitably be buffeted by shocks that cannot be foreseen.

There are limits to monetary policy.

We believe that the Federal Reserve has to carry on with a progressive increase in interest rates as a consequence of the American economy.

The more guidance a central bank can provide the public about how policy is likely to evolve the greater the chance that market participants will make appropriate inferences.

I would be uncomfortable raising the federal funds rate if readings on wage growth, core consumer prices, and other indicators of underlying inflation pressures were to weaken, if market-based measures of inflation compensation were to fall appreciably further, or if survey-based measures were to begin to decline noticeably.

The Fed's ability to raise and lower short-term interest rates is its primary control over the economy.

It's appropriate for the Fed to gradually and cautiously increase our overnight interest rate over time.

Stronger productivity growth would tend to raise the average level of interest rates and, therefore, would provide the Federal Reserve with greater scope to ease monetary policy in the event of a recession.

I think the Fed is not designed to have effective tools to deal with the economy. It should settle for just controlling the money supply. And - if it insists, it can worry about inflation.

The Fed should make a clear commitment to stable money to reduce the swings in interest rates and inflation. Instead, it champions and flaunts unstable money. This encourages momentum trading and the growth of derivatives. Meanwhile, layers of financial regulation make Washington bigger and more powerful but don't fix the underlying problems.