This "game" seems to allow me to modify the outcome of the Fed's policies, and not the inputs. Unless it's advocating price controls as a means to economic prosperity, I don't see the relevance.<p>Am I missing something here?
"Fed’s goal: get the U.S. inflation rate to 2%":
This is partially true, since the Fed's goal is also to maximize employment[1]. So really, they should add employment rates in these different categories as well. Which makes the job even harder.<p>In fact, balancing the two was thought to be a very hard job in theory, almost impossible. And that's why the EU central bank mission _is_ to only stabilize inflation and let each country focus on employment. (it's less and less true because of pressure from EU countries such as France and Italy).<p>[1] <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/mission.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/mission.htm</a>
At first glance, had no idea what I was supposed to do or how it worked. At second glance, it seems like you're just setting price inflation on a number of components, trying to get the weighted average to be 2%. Wildly overhyped "game"?
This "game" is stupid because it doesn't do anything at all to show the trade offs.<p>As a gross generalization:<p>Higher Growth -> Higher Employment -> Higher Inflation<p>High Inflation -> Negative Income Growth (for those on low wages and fixed incomes) -> Risk of Recession and/or Social Disruption<p>Lower Growth -> High Unemployment -> Risk of Recession and/or Social Disruption<p>Put those parameters in and the "game" gets interesting. At the moment it's just pointless.