Charles L. Evans

For risk management reasons, we need to make sure we hit our inflation objective at the same time we're at full employment.

It's a challenge for monetary policy to communicate that our inflation objective is 2 percent.

At the end of the day, inflation has been below 2% for quite a long time, and to me, symmetry means getting somewhere above 2% inflation at some point in my Fed career.

In a world of global competition and new technology, I think competition is coming from new places.

Negative interest rates have been employed by many, many central banks.

If you look around the world and see all the different countries struggling to get away from very low inflation rates with economies not nearly as strong as ours, you want to make sure we avoid those circumstances.

I think that sharing information about our economies, the way that the central banks do in Basel and other forums, is quite useful. But it's sharing information. It's not coordinating policy. It's not coordinating a single monetary policy.

When capital comes into our own countries, it ought to be for, you know, a longer-term investment. If it's extremely short, hot money, we ought to treat it in that way and have type of regulatory policy.

During the slow recovery after the Great Recession, inflation was very low, and it took us a while to get it back moving up.

For every company that sees the value of their capital go up, there's another company that has been disrupted, and the value of their capital gets marked down because it's not going to compete in the same way.

From the peak in 2007 to the trough in 2009, Americans lost $11 trillion of net worth for households and businesses.

Central bankers tend to be conservative by nature.