Some of us have been watching the Fed for more decades than merely the most recent three.<p>>I spent more than three decades with the Federal Reserve System as an executive and as a widely cited research economist. My training was mainstream. I learned economics from leading scholars at Princeton and Harvard. As director of the research department at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, I attended dozens of the Fed’s monetary policymaking meetings—the Federal Open Market Committee meetings—in DC under each of the past five chairs, observing up close how the sausage is made. All of this was rewarding and fascinating.<p>So back then this was recognized long ago as part of the problem that would keep the Fed from performing in the best interest of most Americans. Even more fascinating in the 1970's and like everything else since then less rewarding to boot.<p>>Then, about 15 years ago, the Fed partnered with a host of institutions in midsized, postindustrial New England cities to figure out how to bring back economic vitality. I was fortunate to be involved in numerous in-person discussions with residents and leaders of these low-income, often majority-minority, communities. The more I learned about their lives, the more I became aware of gaps in mainstream economics.<p>With that kind of background, for the professionals inside the Fed it's not surprising for it to take 15 years before a more realistic picture can be made which reflects the outcome from a mainstream system which insidiously includes too much of a predatory component.<p>And this looks like one of the more open-minded, aware Fed economists.