Congressman Ron Paul held a subcommittee hearing on reform of the Federal Reserve system a couple days ago that featured testimony from Senior Scholar James Galbraith, Alice Rivlin, John Taylor, Jeffrey Herbener, and Peter Klein.  There were a wide variety of topics addressed, including the size of the Fed’s balance sheet, proposals to make the Fed an arm of the Treasury, and changes to FOMC governance.

Also raised was the question of whether to (formally) drop the employment side of the Fed’s dual mandate (because with unemployment at the dangerously low level of 8 percent and inflation sky high around 2 percent, clearly we’d be better off if the Fed were more like the ECB …).  As Galbraith recounts, he himself was part of the team that drafted the Humphrey-Hawkins Act (“at a time of acute theoretical conflict in economics,” he points out), and he offers his defense of the dual mandate here:

As for the decided and observable tilt toward the price stability arm of the dual mandate, Galbraith collaborated on a working paper a few years back that identified the “real reaction function” of the Fed:  an aversion to full employment (“after 1983 the Federal Reserve largely ceased reacting to inflation or high unemployment, but continued to react when unemployment fell ‘too low.'”).  Although the working paper only covers the period 1984-2003, it raises an interesting contemporary question: even if Congress produced a substantial fiscal stimulus or managed to keep public employment levels anywhere close to where they were in 2008, to what extent would the Fed accommodate the expansionary effects?

Update:  Galbraith’s statement before the subcommittee can be read here.