The benefit of appointing a hawkish central banker is the increased inflation-fighting credibility that such an appointment brings.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Of course, looking tough on inflation is part of any central banker's job description: if investors believe that inflation is going to get out of control, you end up with higher interest rates and capital flight, and a vicious circle quickly ensues.
By the time I became chairman and there was more of a feeling of urgency, there was a willingness to accept more forceful measures to try to deal with the inflation.
I have never believed that central banks should have rigid inflation targeting. That is not a good thing to stabilize. There is nothing in economic theory to back this.
Since World War II, inflation - the apparently inexorable rise in the prices of goods and services - has been the bane of central bankers.
A crucial responsibility of any central bank is to control inflation, the average rate of increase in the prices of a broad group of goods and services.
I'm just opposed to a pure inflation-only mandate in which the only thing a central bank cares about is inflation and not employment.
To be sure, faster growth in nominal labor compensation does not necessarily portend higher inflation.
The supply-side effect of a restrictive monetary policy is likely to be perverse, in that high interest rates enter into costs and thus exert inflationary pressure.
The privilege of ruling would be in the hands of the skilled and the learned, with a wide scope left for profitable crooked deals carried on by the Jews, who would be attracted by the enormous extension of the international speculations of the national banks.
Efforts to promote financial stability through adjustments in interest rates would increase the volatility of inflation and employment. As a result, I believe a macro-prudential approach to supervision and regulation needs to play the primary role.