I find this game of labeling people hawks and doves as being fun for the media, fun for the people who read the media. I don't find it useful in thinking about myself and the way I interact with the committee at all. I see myself as being somebody who's going to come in there and think about the theory and the evidence and make a judgment based on that.
The bar for dissent from the committee is going to be pretty high for me. But you know, in terms of the dialogue, I try to bring best available theory that I have, best available evidence and go from there.
...
I think that's very important for people to take away how the FOMC operates. Person X might be in there saying, 'Hmm, you know, you've been saying the pluses about this policy, but there are also some minuses we should be keeping in mind.' And that doesn't mean at the end of the day that that person, Person X, is going to vote against that policy. At the same time, if a voting member feels sufficiently strongly the policy is going in the wrong direction, that the committee is taking the wrong steps, they should, at that point, I agree, dissent and communicate those concerns publicly.