according to the theory of macro economics it is not possible.

It's impossible to achieve full employment with just the absences of inflation.

Inflation will always be there due to increasing consumption (increasing population) as matched with slower a rate of resource exploitation. Inflation is a function of money, money is a tool of exchange, an measure of satisfaction, More Money... more satisfaction achievable. More money versus product = INFLATION.

It is very difficult, if not impossible, to measure inflation. It is also difficult to define full employment - exactly how disabled do people have to be before you do no add them to then unemployed,and you much pressure must there be on the voluntarily unemployed (home makers, for example) to become employed? Also, a modest amount of measured inflation is regarded as a good thing, because it gives the possibility to give real terms wage falls without cutting cash wages. So I don't think the question is really meaningful. It is like those applied maths calculations which talk about weightless strings and frictionless pulleys. In the real world, something will cause inflation, and usefully so, as unemployment falls to low levels.

It is not optimal.

Full employment does not mean that everyone who wants a job has one. In the US, being out of work six months removes you from the employment census and statistically, you cease to exist. Full employment drives up wages, which can heat up inflation. But, the biggest factors effecting inflation are money supply issues. 1. The government prints too much and devalues it. 2. The government sucks up too much of the money supply, driving up interest rates, the cost of living, the cost of doing business, etc.

In the US, where the minimum wage is not sufficient for adults with children to adequately support a family, "full employment" is possible, but not feasible. While we have a measurable unemployment rate here, there are actually plenty of jobs to go around. There are industries such as food service, retail sales and manual labor jobs which are in a constant shortage of reliable employees nationwide. But not everyone wants these jobs. Not everyone wants a job at all. In order to pay people what they are "worth", yes, we would have to see an inflation spike.

Yes it is. If we go back 30 years ago the Phillips curve would have implied no. Basically he looked at inflation and unemployment over a period of over 100 years and mapped them on to a graph and found that as inflation increased, unemployment decreased. It was quite a stunning find and so economic policies changes in order to take into account this affect. However with everything in economics and statistics - you have to be careful. Bascially as soon as people assumed it was right, it no longer worked. Cause and effect. In England, Mrs Thatcher followed a monetarist approach, which did not believe that inflatino would cause a reductino in unemployment. Their view was that inflation is inherently bad (I am simplyfying enormously). At first unemployment went up as inflation was slowly brought under control, but then unemployment was reduced too. Even labour govenrments after Mrs Thatcher continued with this monetarist approach. In England we have had relatively low inflation and low unemployment for many years. However, you always need some workers to be changing jobs - transient unemployment. Prices also need to change to reflect peoples changing priorities. Small amounts of either are not necessarily bad. Large amounts however are. Sorry very simplified but hope I got the points across. (Simplified becuase I have forgotten a lot of it - not because I know it all).

I would say no, not at all possible.Full employment would appear unachievable on its own, without taking inflation into account.

In the market economies it seems impossible to reach full employment without having the pressure of a increasing price index.The right economic policies, i.e monetary (increasing interest rates) and curtailing government expenditures should be put in effect to alleviate the inflation.