We're talking about the Federal Reserve, not McDonald's. Given the far-reaching repercussions of their policies, it makes absolute sense that they would be extremely explicit in their grammar. While they use big words and it's a long sentence, nothing there is obfuscated.

The premise of your argument is that explicitness comes at the expense of additional complexity. I believe this premise may be flawed.

Let's rewrite it from:

> We began this public review in early 2019 to assess the monetary policy strategy, tools, and communications that would best foster achievement of our congressionally assigned goals of maximum employment and price stability over the years ahead in service to the American people.

To:

"""

We began this public review in early 2019. The goal was to assess items relating to monetary policy ("Monetary Policy" has to do with the creation and management of money at a national level).

Those monetary policy items under review were the:

- strategy.

- tools.

- communications.

The goals of the policy review, which were assigned by congress, were:

- maximum employment.

- price stability going forward, for years to come, in service to the American people.

"""

I believe nothing has been lost from the original text, and that this is far easier to read and understand.

Who do you think the target audience is? You seem to think that the target audience should be people on HN, or people who read less well even than us. That's not the actual audience. It's bankers.

Your version lost the congressional mandate. Took a bit to notice too since it's so wordy.

Yeah this is nothing compared to an intro to econometrics textbook. It's not written for laymen to intake but to be processed by experts and commented on from there. It's important it's specific and precise language, not concise.

Much of monetary policy theory today is premised on the notion that central bankers are very good at communicating their intentions to markets.

...as you have found, this is not true.