that policymakers need to be open to alternative views about how best to set policy over time to stabilize prices and achieve maximum employment. all models of the economy are flawed to some degree, and a policymaker cannot dismiss a risk simply because it is improbable in his or her favorite model. i don ’ t know of any formal model that predicted what we have just been through. rather, policymakers need to weigh the predictions of competing models in light of both theory and empirical evidence. they also need to be prepared to adjust these weights or even abandon some models when the incoming data are inconsistent with the view of the world embodied in the particular model. in my experience, these and other considerations put a premium on flexibility. the need to learn from and respond to news means that policy should have a substantial discretionary component. we have certainly needed to innovate over the past several years to contain the damage from unprecedented events in financial markets. but discretion has its limits as well. we must be able to explain and justify our actions within a coherent framework – even if the elements of that framework are adjusted from time to time as experience dictates. and to the extent that we can act predictably, households and businesses will be able to anticipate our actions, reinforcing their effects. finally, we must not be flexible about our objectives. the goals of monetary policy – price stability and maximum employment – are stable and well known. the flexibility relates to the actions we take to get there. conclusion the economy appears to be moving in the right direction, though not as quickly as we all would like. as i prepare to step down from my current position, i recognize that i am leaving janet and my other colleagues with some formidable tasks. but i am confident that under the leadership of chairman bernanke, the federal reserve will be able to foster the restoration of prosperity and stability for the u. s. economy over the years to come.

january 2021 ]. we should indeed strive to design our own framework for non - financial data, which meets our own needs ( which means, for instance, integrating the ambitious concept of double materiality ). it is a european responsibility, and a public one : we cannot just leave it to private bodies, at the global level. we should be committed to make our common framework operational and easy to transpose. we europeans would then be in a position to inspire potential international initiatives aiming to produce a global sustainable reporting framework, and then make sure that the eu standards are widely recognised. such a necessary endeavour for the eu also has domestic grounds : we will have to implement the new article 29 of the “ loi energie et climat ”, which will replace article 173. i dearly hope that, the acpr and the french treasury together, we can use the decree scheduled for early next year to strengthen harmonisation along the lines of the european standard that is to come. if not – but that would be a second best – we should at least ensure a french comparability. * * * i have insisted on what we can do, must do, and will do : regarding supervision, monetary policy, and the harmonisation of financial disclosures. let me remind you in conclusion that we central banks cannot be “ the only game in town ” : to give an obvious example, only an accurate carbon pricing will allow for a full integration of climate risks into any business decision. we cannot do everything, but rest assured we will do our utmost. 3 / 3 bis central bankers'speeches