The Fed's mandate "so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates" It does not mention asse

The Fed's mandate "so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates" It does not mention asset price bubbles, or inequality. > stoke dangerous asset bubbles Maybe low interest rates increase the risk of asset bubbles, but there were plenty of asset bubbles when interest rates were higher than today. But are we willing to accept less than full employment for the risk of maybe causing an asset bubble that will lead to less than full employment? It's trading something bad today for a risk of something bad tomorrow. Seems like a poor trade to me. > enrich the biggest banks over everyone else Investopedia doesn't think so, but who cares if banks get rich if it means we have full employment. > that would deepen income inequality There is plenty of evidence that full employment helps reduce income inequality. Anecdotally the recent shortage of employees means I'm seeing gas stations advertising $15/hr instead of the $8 they used to pay. Meanwhile everyone I know who was making $100k didn't see a 100% raise. Research backs up that full employment reduces inequality [1]. [0] https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/041015/how-do-interest-rate-changes-affect-profitability-banking-sector.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/041015/how-do-inter... [1] https://equitablegrowth.org/wages-full-employment-reducing-inequality/ https://equitablegrowth.org/wages-full-employment-reducing-i...