So the Fed should wait until there's substantial deflation, and then spend just enough to get the price level to spot falling. Okay - fine; Prices are stable. The govt will continue to be enact fiscally contractionary policies (as Japan's did, and as we are now). The economy continues to reduce. Are you really better off under this scenario? Is this really better than the Fed having a dual mandate and thereby need to job create in addition to keep a stable price level?
I suspect you simply can't comprehend the contradictions in the dual mandate. This thread has given you plenty of time to figure out the simple fact that you cannot fight both battles and win. More than likely, you will lose both battles AS WE ARE CURRENTLY!
No. I don't understand this thread at all. The reason for the 'dual' mandate is precisely because there are two goals that are both desirable but not always mutually attainable. Thus, the Fed is forced to make policy decisions that try to find the middle ground. This is a good thing. No one has yet to give me a reason why this isn't.