In an editorial regarding former President and current Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump as “Central Banker”—The Wall Street Journal editors’ tongue-in-cheek term—those same editors noted this about the Federal Reserve’s economic models:

[T]he Fed staff’s models that are still rooted in the tradeoff between inflation and unemployment.

The editors are right about that being a mistake; although they don’t expand on that claim with their reasoning about why that’s a mistake.

My claim about why that’s a mistake is this. First, the Fed’s situation is rooted in its statutorily mandated requirement to maintain price stability and to maintain full employment. The view from Congressional and White House politicians, the Fed, and so many economists is that these are separate, if not mutually opposing (and so not so separate) requirements.

My view, then, is that the two requirements are closely related, but in sequence, not in opposition. Keeping prices reasonably stable—the Fed’s nominal inflation target of 2% per year works well enough—greatly facilitates a healthy, growing economy. That healthy, growing economy itself pushes toward full employment. The Fed’s strongest move toward its full employment mandate, then, is to satisfy its mandate of maintaining price stability and to take no overt action regarding employment.