At the present time there is no conflict between our employment objective and our inflation objective, as I expect inflation to be at or below our 2 percent longer-run objective over the coming years. But shouldn’t we also consider the costs associated with a more aggressive monetary policy of the kind adopted at the last FOMC meeting, especially when we are using non-traditional monetary policy tools? Absolutely. We have carefully evaluated three potential sets of costs and will continue to review them. The first set of costs stems from the risk that the current monetary policy regime could distort asset allocations and lead to renewed financial asset bubbles. We look at this issue on an ongoing basis. To date, there is little evidence of problems or excesses, but this could change as the recovery proceeds. If these costs were to rise, we would need to examine what steps could be taken on the macro-prudential front in response. Also, such developments would need to be incorporated into the monetary policy decision-making process. The second set of costs stems from the risk that exit from this regime could prove difficult. In particular, some observers worry that the expansion of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet could ultimately prove inflationary. If that were the case, then I would regard the costs as exceptionally high. Fortunately, I am confident that such fears are misplaced. That is because we now have the ability to pay interest on excess reserves (IOER).
However, in the end, the IMF decided to cooperate with  BIS Review 164/2009  1  Ecuador in its move towards dollarization of the economy, the latter becoming a success as economic performance in Ecuador has been fairly stable since dollarization was introduced. The Ecuadorian case proves that it is difficult to assess the merits and the costs of dollarization. In fact, a successfully executed dollarization is not enough to realize a stable economic environment: this process needs to be followed by sound economic and fiscal policies, otherwise the situation will go from bad to worse. In other words: dollarization is not a magic wand! 3. Effects of dollarization  The case of Ecuador illustrates well how hard it is to formulate general conditions for a successful dollarization. It is not only difficult to assess the pros and cons of dollarization, it is also necessary to analyze the country’s starting position, assess the political and social willingness to abandon the local currency, and to execute a sound economic policy after dollarization, in order to be able to conclude what the effects of dollarization were or are. In the last ten years there has been a steady discussion on the pros and cons of dollarization. Very distinguished economists like Stanley Fischer (who is currently governor of the Bank of Israel), Sebastian Edwards, Rudiger Dornbusch, Jeffrey Sachs and Paul Krugman all made valuable contributions, reaching however different conclusions on the merits of dollarization.