The central bank has a dual mandate, control inflation and full employment. These are thought to be opposing forces in conventional economic theory (to increase

The central bank has a dual mandate, control inflation and full employment. These are thought to be opposing forces in conventional economic theory (to increase employment, you want to lower interest rates, to lower inflation you want to increase interest rates). Although the relationship between interest rates and employment is not really empirically proven [0]. It's tough because it's not a closed system and you don't have a control. But the Fed assumes this relationship. The point is if you have a mandate pulling you to decrease a number and another equally important mandate pulling you to increase a number, it's kind of meaningless. You're essentially reading tea-leaves. You can justify anything really. I would prefer the central bank to control inflation as a single mandate through something like the Taylor Rule [1] and leave the employment mandate to the Legislative branch [0] https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/april-2013/low-interest-rates-have-yet-to-spur-job-growth https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/a... [1] https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/10/taylor-rule.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/10/taylor-ru...