I think that would be a very, very misguided approach.

The proposed settlement would fundamentally alter the regulation of our banks, yet this would be done without congressional involvement.

The long-term consequences of this settlement could be even more serious. It would politicize our financial system.

I warned that the new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection would prove to be an unaccountable and unbridled bureaucracy.

The proposed settlement appears to be an attempt to advance the Administration's political agenda rather than an effort to help homeowners.

The Taylor Rule would call for a Fed funds rate of about 1 percent right now.

But before the oil--well, we have not actually had supply disruptions. We have had major political turmoil that gives rise to worries about potential supply disruption.

I sometimes wonder how much we learned from the recent bubbles, and given the current policy, I worry about whether we are not in the process of creating new ones.

I think when the Fed, indirectly through bank intermediaries, nevertheless directly is effectively purchasing the debt that we are issuing on a massive scale, something on the order of two-thirds of the deficit that we are running this…

One of the things that concerns me is that the strategy itself is designed, in part, to raise inflation expectations.

My understanding is that his view of his own rule is that it would call for a higher Fed funds rates than what we have now.

The market knows the difference between delaying a payment to the guys who cut the grass on the Mall, and failure to make a bond payment.