, would significantly lower u. s. imports from china but would comparably raise u. s. imports from other low - cost sources of supply. at only slightly higher prices than prevail at present, u. s. imports of textiles, light manufactures, assembled computers, toys, and similar products would in part shift from china as the final assembler to other emerging - market economies in asia and, perhaps, in latin america as well. few, if any, american jobs would be protected. more generally, any significant elevation of tariffs that substantially reduces our overall imports, by keeping out competitively priced goods, would materially lower our standard of living. a return to protectionism would threaten the continuation of much of the extraordinary growth in living standards worldwide, but especially in the united states, that is due importantly to the post - world war ii opening of global markets. such an initiative would send the adverse message to our trading partners that the united states, while accepting the benefits of broadened world trade, is not willing to absorb the structural adjustments that are often necessary. to maintain a rising standard of living, a dynamic economy such as ours requires a continual shifting of resources toward the most up - to - date technologies, financed not only by savings but also importantly by the depreciation of increasingly obsolescent facilities. this highly dynamic process is mirrored in our labor markets, where jobs are constantly being created and destroyed at a rapid pace. new hires in the united states currently average more than a million per week, half resulting from voluntary job change. at the same time, during a typical recent week, about 150, 000 workers are temporarily laid off and another 225, 000 are subject to permanent job loss. any effect of trade with china on u. s. employment is likely to be very small relative to the scale of job creation and job loss in our economy. a policy to dismantle the global trading system in a misguided effort to protect jobs from competition would redound to the eventual detriment of all u. s. job seekers, as well as of millions of american consumers. policy should aim to bolster the well - being of job losers through retraining and unemployment insurance, not to stave off job loss through counterproductive efforts to impede the process of income - enhancing international trade and globalization. * * * while the presumption that a revaluation of the rmb will notably increase jobs in the united states by con

the federal reserve, often describe their policies in this way. i would now like to discuss how i think about two the seminal reference is john b. taylor ( 1993 ), “ discretion versus policy rules in practice, ” carnegierochester conference series on public policy, vol. 39 ( december ), pp. 195 - 214. see also richard clarida, jordi gali, and mark gertler ( 1999 ), “ the science of monetary policy : a new keynesian perspective, ” journal of economic literature, vol. 37 ( december ), pp. 1661 - 707 ; richard clarida, jordi gali, and mark gertler ( 2000 ), “ monetary policy rules and macroeconomic stability : evidence and some theory, ” quarterly journal of economics, vol. 115 ( february ), pp. 147 - 80 ; michael woodford ( 2003 ), interest and prices : foundations of a theory of monetary policy ( princeton, n. j. : princeton university press ) ; and lars e. o. svensson ( 2015 ), “ forward guidance, ” international journal of central banking, vol. 11 ( september ), pp. 19 - 64. - 5distinct roles that data dependence should play in the formulation and communication of monetary policy. it is important to state up - front that data dependence is not, in and of itself, a monetary policy strategy. a monetary policy strategy must find a way to combine incoming data and a model of the economy with a healthy dose of judgment - - and humility! - - to formulate, and then communicate, a path for the policy rate most consistent with our policy objectives. in the case of the fed, those objectives are assigned to us by the congress, and they are to achieve maximum employment and price stability. importantly, because households and firms must make long - term saving and investment decisions and because these decisions - - directly or indirectly - - depend on the expected future path for the policy rate, the central bank should find a way to communicate and explain how incoming data are or are not changing the expected path for the policy rate consistent with best meeting its objectives. 4 absent such communication, inefficient divergences between public expectations and central bank intentions for the policy rate path can emerge and persist in ways that are costly to the economy when reversed. within this general framework, let me now consider two distinct ways in which i think that the path for the federal funds rate should be