kakeith406/op-fed huggingface dataset:
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN BURNS.
text: Do you, Mr. Partee? 
speaker: MR. PARTEE.
text: It just requires careful thought-- 
speaker: MR. MAYO.
text: Sure. Well, that's really all we are saying. 
speaker: MR. PARTEE.
text: --when you adopt a broader range. 

MR. MAYO. "And we will be feeling our way."

Full utterance: We are starting from a half, and it's logical to consider that [as being] home base as we feel our way here. And we will be feeling our way. I had one question which was raised by the speculation earlier. Well, suppose the aggregates are coming in stronger, and we decided we do have to make a move. This may seem like a silly question--it would have been a silly question two years ago; maybe it isn't so silly now--but, honorable counsel, are we well protected in the Freedom of Information Act from somebody coming in and saying, "Say, you are moving the federal funds kind of fast within your ranges. Do you have information that we don't have as to the behavior of the aggregates? I demand such information under the Freedom of Information Act."

Opinion: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN MILLER.
text: Jim, wouldn't you say, though, that if they would scale up their plans, we'd still have a lag time because of [unintelligible] problems? These kinds of problems are worse today than they were five years ago. 
speaker: MR. KICHLINE.
text: Oh, sure. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN MILLER.
text: So even if plans get built up, it's hard to get the spending in very quickly. Bob Black. 

MR. BLACK. "I was just wondering what odds you would put on an upward revision of that [Q1 GNP] from an actual decline to a positive figure."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Our projections also show a low, along with Richmond's, so I like his 2 percent lower range. I also think we ought to be pretty cautious. It would be a new move in my mind going above 7-1/2 so I'd leave that 8 percent at the top of the range for the same reason that he did. And something like 4 to 9 or 4-1/2 to 8-1/2 on M2 looks fine to me. So I put this in a context of completing what we started here, pausing before we make another discrete new move. 

CHAIRMAN MILLER. "Well, hearing all that, let me see if I can come up with a proposal to be voted on."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. AXILROD.
text: If I track past Committee behavior and average it out, I believe there=s some hope for the short run. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN MILLER.
text: Well, gentlemen we have two major matters of business: (1) the directive and (2) the language. I would suggest that we run through the Committee to get your suggestions for the directive first and look at the language second. Since I cut our Vice Chairman short the last time and left him to the end, the least I can do is to put him up front today. Paul, would you like to lead off? 

VICE CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "That raises the question of what ranges we should put there."

Full utterance: Well, I=ll try to be short, Mr. Chairman. Despite the comments I made earlier on being skeptical about the longer-term outlook for business, I do think it=s strong at the moment. We do have these inflationary pressures. We do have speculative concerns that have been referred to. I think we have an expectation in the market of some Federal Reserve tightening and I think we probably should meet that expectation or we would be feeding some of the adverse speculative feeling. I do have some concern over the value of some tightening in terms of the continuing stability of the dollar internationally as well. Therefore, I do think we should move. The 7-1/2 to 8 percent range seems right to me and the B alternative, with some implication that we go to 7-3/4 percent as promptly as the people at the Desk think that=s advisable. I would be a little reluctant to go beyond that but not absolutely allergic to it if that=s necessary--if the aggregates come in on the high side. That raises the question of what ranges we should put there. Those ranges specified under the B alternative look awfully high in terms of our longer-range objectives. I recognize that the projections are also fairly high. It seems to me that we could at least widen the range on the downside, because I don=t think we want to ease very [readily], and I would suggest a lower level of 5. And if we widen the range a little bit, we could leave it 5 to 10 percent. As I say, if it really got to the top part of that range, I think I would go to 8 [on the funds rate], but I would do it with some reluctance. Perhaps the way to express that would be a money market directive and the new language or some other kind of device to make clear that, while we might be willing to move to 8, we'd do it with some due deliberation after a good deal of further evidence comes in.

Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN MILLER.
text: How about M3--the same? 
speaker: MR. MORRIS.
text: I think I'd be inclined to leave all the numbers the same and simply change the emphasis. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN MILLER.
text: Okay. Very interesting proposal. Henry. 

MR. WALLICH. "I can visualize, because of the very fact that NOW accounts have been talked about so widely nationally, that people would be prepared for them now and would be interested in taking advantage of them."

Full utterance: I would argue very strongly for not changing the present M1 range, and not changing any of the relationships of the three aggregates. First, there are substantive reasons for proceeding as I suggest. We have for a long time had an unrealistic M1 target; we've lived with that by utilizing base drift. We have adjusted it, in effect, from quarter to quarter and we [operated] essentially on a very modified money supply or aggregates target. We have been more nearly on an interest rate target. At the present time I think the dangers of ignoring sudden upward movements on the interest rate, as might come from observing a tight money supply target very closely, are particularly great. Now, we probably are going to have automatic transfers and I am impressed by what Frank says--that they might not produce very much of a change. I can visualize, because of the very fact that NOW accounts have been talked about so widely nationally, that people would be prepared for them now and would be interested in taking advantage of them. I wouldn't write this off. In the least favorable case, I think Steve predicted an improvement in velocity--if you can call it that--of 1 percentage point and the maximum I think you had was 3.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): contradiction
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN MILLER.
text: Just looking down this quickly, in outline, for real GNP we seem to come out with a consensus lower than the staff's--that is, a little lower than 3-1/2 percent. Inflation looks to be maybe a little stronger than the staff projection, at 7-1/2 plus, and unemployment looks higher at a 6 percent plus figure. That's very helpful to us. I think this is a very helpful process. 
speaker: MR. COLDWELL.
text: I thought it was interesting, Mr. Chairman, that I didn't hear anybody talking about the unemployment rate varying any more than 5-3/4 percent to 6-1/2 percent--a very narrow range. 

CHAIRMAN MILLER. "[our view] is that we're in that range and the other things are going to slow down the economy [but firms will] not discharge labor because apparently productivity is not going to [increase]."


Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. COLDWELL.
text: But I'm leaving myself a half point above that in the event we need it. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN MILLER.
text: You said to an 8-- 
speaker: MR. COLDWELL.
text: Yes, a flat 8 percent midpoint; a 7-3/4 to 8-1/2 range. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN MILLER.
text: We just had accounting trouble. 
speaker: MR. PARTEE.
text: Did you mean money market or monetary aggregates directive? 

MR. COLDWELL. "If I read the directive right--the way this is written on the back of page 13--you start moving the fed funds rate on a monetary aggregates approach [if growth is] significantly above or below the midpoint and on a money market when it's close to or beyond the upper or lower limits."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. COLDWELL.
text: I am a little curious, Jim, about your description of the employment as slowing. July and August I always thought were slow months anyway and I don't really see anything there. 
speaker: MR. KICHLINE.
text: Seasonally adjusted. 

MR. COLDWELL. "Also, I'm a little curious about your description of industrial production slowing when we're still getting more than 1/2 percent a month, having come off [unintelligible]."

Full utterance: Also, I'm a little curious about your description of industrial production slowing when we're still getting more than 1/2 percent a month, having come off [unintelligible]. I thought it was doing very well. The consumer goods weakening I thought was something that needed to come along, and if we're going to maintain 1/2 percent growth with that kind of weakening then [something] else has to be strengthening. So I'm a little curious about your description but your net result is pretty close to mine.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. HOLMES.
text: We have investing arrangements now in all three of the currencies that would be involved. 
speaker: MR. PARTEE.
text: Because that might [amount] to quite a bit. 
speaker: MR. HOLMES.
text: It could be, yes. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN MILLER.
text: The present authority would be up to $1-1/2 billion. 
speaker: MR. PARTEE.
text: It would be counterproductive to pay off the Germans. 

MR. HOLMES. "It probably would be."

Full utterance: It probably would be. It just gets very complicated when you try to look at it--

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. EASTBURN.
text: Well, reacting to what Phil said, I continue to find it difficult to see how you have this kind of soft landing with the very high inflation rates that are forecasted. And just on the other side of Mark's comment, at a recent meeting we had with business people, the view was unanimous that we are in for a recession. I think there is this kind of talk going on. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN MILLER.
text: Well, some of them want it. Willis. 

MR. WINN. "On the business [side], you get a strange dichotomy."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: I don't feel very sensitive to these ranges when the figure bounces around plus or minus 5 percentage points. I can't worry about a half percentage point on either end. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN MILLER.
text: Henry, you had 2-1/2 to 6-1/2 and 4 to 8 as the ranges. 
speaker: MR. WALLICH.
text: I have a hard time because I add 2-1/2 percentage points to each of these and it gets very high for M1. M2 wouldn't worry me so much. 

CHAIRMAN MILLER. "I think we can sell 4 to 8-1/2 percent on M2."

Full utterance: All right, let's try it again. Where did we come out? Murray, you're supposed to do the rest! I think we can sell 4 to 8-1/2 percent on M2.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): contradiction
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. WILLES.
text: I was going to argue that we ought to lift the bottom of that range so that we don't let money grow too slowly but he scared me away from that with his reference to whatever staff investigation is going on that has identified some other factors and if that's right, that would worry me. I would just point out that even if we keep the existing ranges and assume 1 percent for ATS we could have money growth between now and the end of the year at 6-1/2 percent and still fall within the 4-1/2 percent ceiling range, which I think would be an appropriate rate of growth for the second half of the year. If we took what was alternative B in the Bluebook, we could have money growth--with ATS--at 10 percent between now and the end of the year, which I think clearly would be the wrong response in the face of the inflation problem that we have. With regard to 1980, heaven only knows. I guess without information of the kind that Henry was talking about, I'd be inclined at this point to keep ' 8 0 the same as '79 until we figure out a bit more about what's going on. 

CHAIRMAN MILLER. "We are not rebasing; I think everyone understands that."

Full utterance: Thank you, Mark. Perhaps I should pause to make a couple of comments. One is that if we make any change in the ranges for '79, it would be a restatement for the whole year, fourth quarter to fourth quarter. We are not rebasing; I think everyone understands that. And my intention in dealing with ' 8 0 in our report to the Congress--1 hope it's the staff's intention--is to do so in the text and not present a graph because then we would have to find a base point. And that we don't want to do, if you follow me. No chart, in other words. We'll say we are going to have this range for '79 and here is the chart for '79. But for 1980, then, we are going to have a range of so-and-so and it's just going to be in the text. We will not, therefore, pick the point from which we have that growth. I think that will give us a little less trouble when we set the ranges firmly in January or February when we do it for the year. Then we present it as our real target for the year and now we are just giving a preliminary indication. So I think that will be helpful. Bob Mayo.

Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Those are enough variables to consider. And we'll consider any further bias later. 
speaker: MR. BAUGHMAN.
text: I find Governor Coldwell's suggestion fairly reasonable, all things considered. 
speaker: MR. RICE.
text: Mr. Chairman, I would like to see a wider range on the federal funds rate. 
speaker: MR. COLDWELL.
text: Wider, Emmett? 

MR. RICE. "I would like to see something like 9 percent on the low side and 15 to 16 percent on the high side."

Full utterance: Yes, wider on both the low and the high sides. I would like to see something like 9 percent on the low side and 15 to 16 percent on the high side.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): neutral
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. BLACK.
text: I do, too 
speaker: M R . MAYO.
text: Paul, one of the problems with the alternative is that we either adopt a wide range or start with a funds rate that's already above where it is now. In other words, if it's at a little less than 12 percent now, and we put our range at 12-1/2 to 14 percent or whatever you suggested, that raises another difficulty. Maybe it's mechanical. But from a realistic standpoint we almost have to widen the range on the alternative. 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "Oh, I said we would have to widen the ranges on the alternative"

Full utterance: Oh, I said we would have to widen the ranges on the alternative [technique].

Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. WALLICH.
text: The Board staff's forecast is under those of forecasters who are not bound by that constraint; I think those forecasters generally accept and expect a substantial tax cut sometime this year. Therefore, the shape of their recession is different. Their recession is shorter than ours and its end is different; instead of saucering out very flat, it comes up more V-shaped. And their inflation expectations--although I don't know this for a fact, but it seems logical from these differences in their view of the income pattern--should be higher than ours. Can you say anything about outside forecasts and the like? 

MR. KICHLINE. "On the inflation side, curiously enough, the Board staff's forecast would be in the upper range of inflation rates of outside forecasts that I've seen for 1981."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. TIMLEN.
text: I think it would have an important impact on inflationary expectations and help our credibility. It will also [add] strongly to the message conveyed in terms of the relevant interest rates in the foreign exchange markets, where I must say the emphasis is on interest rate levels as opposed to the movements against reserve targets. I don't have a strong feeling on what the federal funds range should be, whether it should be 11-1/2 to 16 percent or 11-1/2 to 15-1/2 percent. I'd just as soon stay with the existing range of 11-1/2 to 15-1/2. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Governor Wallich. 

MR. WALLICH. "So if an unreasonable interest rate comes out, I reserve the [option] to evaluate that on its own terms."

Full utterance: Well, I continue to think that the economy moves on interest rates. If I rely on the money supply, it's because in [a period of] inflation I think that's a better way to get the right interest rates than to try to do it outright. But I don't regard the money supply as a black box where I have to accept everything that comes out. So if an unreasonable interest rate comes out, I reserve the [option] to evaluate that on its own terms. As Nancy said, we have reduced the growth of the money supply for 3 years running and have brought inflation from about 7 percent to 13 percent in doing so.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. KICHLINE.
text: So, we think we've roughly captured that. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Governor Partee. 
speaker: MR. PARTEE.
text: I wonder if you would talk a little about your projections on the saving rate, Jim. What bothers me is that you have such a small rise in the saving rate over the next year when one considers that it has been abnormally low and that we seem to see every evidence that people are trying to pay down debt and improve their financial position. And, of course, if that saving rate were to come in significantly higher than you have projected, it would imply a considerably weaker economy. 

MR. KICHLINE. "So, our view is that one of the elements driving the saving rate down recently has been the surge in the relative prices of necessities; and individuals have been willing to let the savings side slip as an attempt to maintain their standard of living."


Opinion: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. AXILROD.
text: At the February meeting. We were assuming that there would be an extra day at the February meeting. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Does that mean that it's all going to be sprung on us that day or are you going to distribute something in advance or what? 
speaker: MR. AXILROD.
text: Well, if God's willing, we will distribute something a week or two in advance. That is our plan, but this is a very large-- 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "We are very close to the point, which is relevant even to our short-term decision, where these numbers are going to go all over the lot presumably."

Full utterance: Well, we also face some uncertainties. We are very close to the point, which is relevant even to our short-term decision, where these numbers are going to go all over the lot presumably. It's conceivable that we may need another meeting here in January. I don't know that we have to decide that, but it may be a good idea to keep that in mind for a variety of reasons.

Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. GRAMLEY.
text: The problem, though, is the numbers that are going to be used to make up the reserve aggregates and what the reserve aggregates are going to look like. The M-1A number, depending on whether or not one takes into account the staff's estimate of NOW accounts in January, is from -2.1 to 4.0 percent. The number for M-1B is 4.6 to 7.5 percent. And I think this-- 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Those problems clearly exist, but I'm not sure what your operational point is. 

MR. GRAMLEY. "My whole point is--"

Full utterance: But that's my whole point. My whole point is--

Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. PARTEE.
text: A billion and a half dollars. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: I hear no appeals that we have another plan that is going to command wider support. I will, therefore, call for a vote. 
speaker: MR. BALLES.
text: I'll mention that I'd go back to 25 years ago and add in tone and feel of the market and operate in bills only. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Gee, we didn't have any inflation in those days. 

SPEAKER(?). "It was pretty good."

Full utterance: It was pretty good.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN SOLOMON.
text: And it seems to me that in the future, if we continue with this operation, every time there's a telephone consultation and a decision is made to change the nonborrowed reserve path--ignoring the floor or ceiling as the case may be--then for the rest of the intermeeting period we are operating without a floor or without a ceiling. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: We could arrive at a different decision. I think that was the decision we arrived at [in this case]. 
speaker: MR. PARTEE.
text: We could do both, I think: reset our path and reset a floor or a ceiling. We just didn't want to reduce that floor, that's all. 

VICE CHAIRMAN SOLOMON. "and then there might or might not be a need for another consultation."

Full utterance: Well, I was a little confused immediately after the meeting until I talked with Paul a couple days later because during the consultation Paul had said--and everybody went along--that he wouldn't be particularly disturbed if the funds rate went as low as, say, even 14 percent and then there might or might not be a need for another consultation. And yet we were required to add reserves when it was down to about 13-1/2 or 13-7/8 percent. So, I was thinking that maybe we had a kind of rough floor set around 14 percent. But then I realized, after talking to him, that the way he was interpreting this was that we basically didn't have a floor.

Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. BOEHNE.
text: I think their expectation is that interest rates are going to come down before the end of the year. If this kind of view prevailed in the economy, I think we'd have a massive spread of heart attacks. 
speaker: MR. BALLES.
text: Starting at this table! 
speaker: MR. BOEHNE.
text: Yes, starting at this table probably. It just does not seem to me that we can have this kind of interest rate structure lasting for two years without some very serious financial collapses. 

MR. PARTEE. "What Jim says is driving them is [the assumption of] a relatively small money supply expansion and [the staff forecast] has to force that on an economy with quite a lot of nominal GNP."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. ALTMANN.
text: Yes Governor Gramley Yes President Keehn Yes Governor Partee Well, I have to vote against it again since I voted against it the last time and it is exactly the same as it was before. 
speaker: MR. WALLICH.
text: You could have changed your mind. 

MR. PARTEE. "No, I haven't changed my mind."

Full utterance: No, I haven't changed my mind. I think more than I did the last time that it's the wrong thing to do.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no