But my reservation is that we could find ourselves from time to time in a somewhat awkward position of having changed policy but not changed where we think the risks lie. That is quite likely and in some cases appropriate. But it may also raise the question: If the Committee thinks that's where the risks are, why didn't we move more aggressively?

Regardless of what you use as your indicators or your proxies, I think that one way or another we have to try to project an underlying forward-looking consistency in policy that ultimately overrides all this noise.

I might note in passing that the amount of information provided in [FOMC] records probably sets a standard among the major central banks in the world, and represents a degree of openness entirely unknown to a central banker of an earlier generation. [Commenting on the decision to begin publishing expanded "policy records" of FOMC discussions shortly after the subsequent meeting.]