A. If inflation were 2 percent today, with the expectation that that’s sustainable, I do agree that we’ve got a lot of accommodation in place. As we begin to raise interest rates initially and in a relatively careful fashion, we’re still going to have a lot of accommodation in place even when we’re at a 1 percent funds rate, so I would expect the unemployment improvement to continue. So yes, that’s entirely sensible. Getting inflation to 2 percent, though — we’re a ways from there. But I would be very pleased to see inflation get up to our objective and be that close to liftoff.

Q. So inflation is now the Fed’s primary focus?

A. I think inflation is the primary focus. That’s my primary focus at the moment. Unemployment is still too high. Resource slack is still evident, and it’s holding back wages and it represents not fully utilized resources. But at the moment I do think that because inflation has been so low for so long it raises the question of whether or not we really are committed — as I know we are — to get inflation to 2 percent. I worry that the public inference on that could wane a little bit. I don’t see it yet, but the fact that the market-based expectations are down a little bit, that’s going in the wrong direction.

Q. You were the champion of the idea that the Fed should tie the duration of its bond purchases to a specific objective — reducing the unemployment rate to at least 6.5 percent. You think it worked. So why not announce an inflation target, like the one proposed by the Minneapolis Fed president Narayana Kocherlakota?

A. I think it’s sensible. I think in theory as a concept it’s a very good idea. I think in practice it runs into — not everybody agrees with it really is what it boils down to. That explicitness makes a lot of people uncomfortable because they say, “I think that’s going to be the case, but what if something else happens and we get stuck?” It’s typically the case that the committee adopts something that’s a little more qualitative. I would be fine with President Kocherlakota’s suggestion myself, but I think other people would be a little nervous.

Q. The Fed has avoided any official indication of the likely timing of a first increase in interest rates, but it seems that Fed officials, present company included, offer that kind of guidance every time they speak. Why not make it official?

A. It seems to me that what I’m trying to describe are the economic conditions when it would be appropriate, based on how far we are from our goals, when we might end up raising the fund rates. I just think it ends up being helpful for people to say, for example, “Conditions now look like the second half of 2015.” I think that’s conditionality. That’s not date-based guidance. But a lot of people get caught up just because I used a date. I was trying to explain this to my college-aged son over the weekend, and he said, “What does considerable time mean?” And I tried all these arguments and he just kind of goes “What?” And then you sort of say, “That means the second half of 2015,” and he goes: “O.K., now I understand. Why didn’t you do that in the first place?” I gave the same answer. I wouldn’t say that he viewed it as 100 percent satisfactory. But that’s a father-son relationship.

Q. Do you think the Fed at its December meeting should change the guidance that rates will remain near zero for a “considerable time?”