Thank you. I’m basically happy with the statement the way it is now. Like President Stern, I was leaning on the side of making it shorter, but when I started to look at where I would cut, it was very hard to come up with places to cut. I don’t think that adopting some of the changes that you outlined earlier will shorten the statement. It could change how we characterize elements of the statement, especially the rationale section. When we talk about economic growth, we can characterize it more as it relates to the central tendency projections that we’ve provided. Then when we characterize inflation, rather than using words like “remains elevated” or “will moderate further,” the public will have the benefit of our projections on a quarterly basis, and it might be easier then to describe how we view the inflation situation. Then also by adopting a total measure for inflation, it will be easier and, again, clearer when we’re saying words like “inflation” or “inflationary pressures.” The public will better understand what measure we’re looking at. So I don’t think that the new approach or the revised approach would change the length, but it might help us in the communication process, and I’m happy with the way that we’re doing the risk assessment in the statement now.
In terms of governance, I think that the public views the statement as a product of the Committee deliberations, and for that reason I think having the Committee vote on the full statement would be helpful. In that regard, Vice Chairman Geithner made a comment earlier about if we go that approach, let’s make fewer changes at the table and focus on giving our input to the statement before the meeting. If we do some of the editing at the table, we don’t have time to reflect on how those changes will be interpreted. So having fewer changes at the table would be helpful. Thank you.