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 me, a wise and humane policy is occasionally to let inflation rise even when inflation is running above target.

By some estimates, income and wealth inequality are near their highest levels in the past hundred years, much higher than the average during that time span and probably higher than for much of American history before then.

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.

We do not interpret bitcoin's popularity as having a relationship with the public's view of the Federal Reserve's conduct of monetary policy

My bottom line is that monetary policy should react to rising prices for houses or other assets only insofar as they affect the central bank's goal variables - output, employment, and inflation.

After adjusting for inflation, the average income of the top 5% of households grew by 38% from 1989 to 2013. …By comparison, the average real income of the other 95% of households grew less than 10%.