Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Like the others who have spoken before me, I think this situation is very serious. We need to do all we can, and I think we need to recognize the reality of where we are. So either alternative A or alternative B does that to a significant extent. I guess I have a slight preference for alternative A as a better recognition that we are not really controlling the federal funds rate in here. We have these other balance sheet things going on, and to me alternative B has a little of the flavor of drawing your target around the hole we have already made in the barn door, or whatever, and pretending that you have some control that you don’t really have. So I think A is better. President Bullard made a very good point that A tends to refocus attention on these alternative policies that we all agree will be the focus of our attention going forward. But I could live with either A or B.
In terms of some of the issues you raised—so going down alternative A—in paragraph 2, the bracketed language, here I agree with President Lacker. I think my slight preference would be to wait until January to do this. Whether or not we have an explicit inflation target as we come out of the January meeting, we can debate in January. We will, I hope, have at least these long-run projections, and this bracketed language can be explained in terms of those long-run projections. Right now, it kind of sits out there. We haven’t yet explained what we think the rates are that best foster economic growth and price stability in the longer term. By the end of the January meeting, we can do that. So I think I would wait for that.
I think the conditional language in the third paragraph is helpful, and I would favor keeping it in. It is appropriately conditioned on weak economic conditions. If other people wanted to add “the disinflationary forces,” which I think come primarily from the weak economic conditions, that would be okay with me, too. But I am fine with this.
In the first sentence of paragraph 4—this is a small point—I would take out the “to continue”: “The focus of policy going forward will be to support the functioning . . ..” When I first read the “to continue,” it sounded as though we are just going to continue what we are doing now. So I would take that out, but that is a small point. On the discussion about whether we should put the size in, I am a little worried about putting it in because the balance sheet has grown so rapidly. If it came down because year-end pressures abated and because the swaps with all of those foreign central banks might tend to come down after the end of the year, I don’t think that the Committee would necessarily want Bill to be replacing every dollar of Eurodollar swaps that came down with something else. I think we are talking about a long-run trend in the base, and we need to be careful about not trying to leave the impression that in every intermeeting period we would expect the base to increase, especially when we don’t control that size. So I would be a little cautious about that. Certainly, if we did include “increase the size of the balance sheet,” I also would say something about the composition. In my view, it is actually the composition more than the size that is going to influence relative asset prices, even though I do recognize that over very long periods, if we keep the base from declining, it would be hard to have prices decline. But I am not sure that is really an effective way to deal with expectations in the short or intermediate run.
I would include the purchases of longer-term Treasury securities. Among other things, I think we ought to do it sometime in the next few months. The fact that you have already talked about it, if we omit it—I guess I disagree with President Evans here—I don’t think that will be low cost. We have a series of things we are doing, and that is not part of it. I think there could be an adverse market reaction. Going back to the base for a second, I agree that we need to do a better job of explaining, as I said yesterday, what this new framework is, how the increase in reserves and the base fits into it—if we can come to some conclusion on that—and why under these circumstances a very large increase in the base isn’t inflationary and how that comes about. We need to do a much better job of explaining these kinds of things. But, again, I would be hesitant to put an explicit target in terms of the level of reserves or the base in there because I don’t really understand the channels through which they influence prices or activity in the short and intermediate terms.
Finally, on bank profits and the effects there, ordinarily I wouldn’t worry about bank profits. It is just a transfer between the owners of banks and households and businesses, and quite frankly, transferring some income to households and businesses seems like a pretty good idea most of the time in these circumstances. I agree that it is more ambiguous than usual, given the worries about the financial sector. Still, we are doing a lot for the banks. We are giving them capital. We are guaranteeing their liabilities—we, the government, that is. This will reduce the rates at which they borrow from the discount window and from each other, so they are getting something there. I think banks are going to need to figure out how to operate at these really low interest rates, so I wouldn’t let my concern about bank profits stop me from doing either alternative A or alternative B. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.