An astute and accurate observation. However, there is no numeric target set in the mandate you allude to:
"The Federal Reserve was created by Congress in 1913 to provide the nation with a safer, more
flexible, and more stable monetary and financial system. In 1977, Congress amended the Federal
Reserve Act (FRA) to provide greater clarity about the goals of monetary policy. The amended FRA
directs the Board of Governors and the FOMC to conduct monetary policy “so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.” [https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/files/the-fed-exp...]
What he is doing is counter to the Fed charter, but if you're pro-Capital, you like some unemployment because it disciplines Labor.
> The chair's main responsibility is to carry out the mandate of the Fed, which is to promote the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.
> The chair's main responsibility is to carry out the mandate of the Fed, which is to promote the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates
You’re correctly quoting your source. But this is crap, as their source [1] makes no reference to “moderate long-term interest rates”.
The Fed is mandated to promote “maximum employment” and “stable prices” [2]. (It defines the former as “the highest level of employment or lowest level of unemployment that the economy can sustain while maintaining a stable inflation rate.”) If inflation is unstable, the economy is above maximum employment.
Isn't the idea that maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates are somewhat in tension with each other though? Which would mean the mandate is to balance those three things – e.g. maximize employment to the extent possible while maintaining stable prices and moderate interest rates.