Perhaps now is too late, but I would question the need for the concept of "stance" and consequently how to identify it. I think it is sufficient to opine that the central bank should use one or more of it policy instruments to increase or decrease one or more of its objectives which in the US have been defined for it in legislation: stable prices and maximum employment. Granted that the legislation (fortunately) does not define either goal, leaving the Fed free to define a flexible average inflation target (FAIT) as "stable." And presumably the value of the target and the degree of flexibility take account of maximizing employment of resources (not just labor)
Steven, coincidentally, on the same day Scott´s book came on line, I posted "When Monetary Policy tightening is not what you think", a "narrative approach" covering the last 30 years.
I wish I had seen this in real time.
Perhaps now is too late, but I would question the need for the concept of "stance" and consequently how to identify it. I think it is sufficient to opine that the central bank should use one or more of it policy instruments to increase or decrease one or more of its objectives which in the US have been defined for it in legislation: stable prices and maximum employment. Granted that the legislation (fortunately) does not define either goal, leaving the Fed free to define a flexible average inflation target (FAIT) as "stable." And presumably the value of the target and the degree of flexibility take account of maximizing employment of resources (not just labor)
Steven, coincidentally, on the same day Scott´s book came on line, I posted "When Monetary Policy tightening is not what you think", a "narrative approach" covering the last 30 years.
https://marcusnunes.substack.com/p/when-monetary-policy-tightening-is