Although we work through financial markets, our goal is to help Main Street, not Wall Street.
Janet YellenRead
Monetary policy ultimately must be conducted in a pragmatic manner that relies not on any particular indicator or model but, instead, reflects an ongoing assessment of a wide range of information in the context of our ever-evolving understanding of the economy.
Interpretation
Monetary policy should be flexible and based on a broad understanding of economic conditions rather than strict adherence to specific models.
Janet Yellen emphasizes the importance of a pragmatic approach to monetary policy, suggesting that it should not be rigidly tied to specific indicators or models. Instead, policy-makers should continuously evaluate a variety of economic information, adapting their strategies to the changing dynamics of the economy to achieve effective results.
In practice
In a speech about economic strategies, a speaker might say, 'As Janet Yellen noted, monetary policy must evolve with the economy.'
Although we work through financial markets, our goal is to help Main Street, not Wall Street.
We need to keep in mind the well-established fact that the full effects of monetary policy are felt only after long lags. This means that policy makers cannot wait until they have achieved their objectives to begin adjusting policy.
A clear lesson of history is that a 'sine qua non' for sustained economic recovery following a financial crisis is a thoroughgoing repair of the financial system.
Transparency concerning the Federal Reserve's conduct of monetary policy is desirable because better public understanding enhances the effectiveness of policy. More important, however, is that transparent communications reflect the Federal Reserve's commitment to accountability within our democratic system of government.
For decades, the pace of technological change in manufacturing has outstripped that in the economy as a whole. And, so, firms - manufacturing firms - have found it easier to continue producing by - with - reducing their workforces.
Inequality has risen to the point that it seems to me worthwhile for the U.S. to seriously consider taking the risk of making our economy more rewarding for more of the people.
The basis on which good repute in any highly organized industrial community ultimately rests is pecuniary strength; and the means of showing pecuniary strength, and so of gaining or retaining a good name, are leisure and a conspicuous consumption of goods.
During the next four years...unless drastic steps are taken by Congress, the U.S. will have nearly 8,000,000 unemployed and will stand on the brink of a deep depression.
This is the paradox of thrift: belt-tightening causes people to lose their jobs, because other people are not buying what they produce, so their debt burden rises rather than falls.
Every dollar released from taxation that is spared or invested will help create a new job and a new salary.
An institution which is financed by a budget - or which enjoys a monopoly which the customer cannot escape - is rewarded for what it deserves rather than what it earns. It is paid for 'good intentions' and 'programs'. It is paid for not alienating important constituents rather than satisfying any one group. It is misdirected by the way it is being paid into defining performance and results as what will produce the budget rather than as what will produce contribution.
It's not that other countries steal jobs from you guys. It's your strategy. Distribute the money and things in a proper way.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.