kakeith406/op-fed huggingface dataset:
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. STERN.
text: That is very close to the current CBO baseline, which I guess is $184 billion. I can think of a number of things that are likely to push that deficit up, starting from the CBO baseline, and not a heck of a lot that are likely to push it down. So it seems to me that the deficit is likely to exceed that $180 billion, perhaps considerably. I am having trouble reconciling that with what you mentioned might be the latest OMB projections. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: What is the latest OMB projection? 

MR. KICHLINE. "It is our sense that the level of that spending is now quite high."

Full utterance: The number floating around that is still preliminary, I think, is $163 billion for the current fiscal year. That's still subject to change but it's in the $160-$165 billion area. Keep in mind: that is the same number that just a matter of a few months ago was $143 billion; so they have added $20 billion. It's a case of how much you want to up the ante. We have added another $20 billion. I think there is a danger of going too far in that direction, because there were legislative changes enacted that will begin to bite. One of the issues relates to defense. We had a lot of defense spending in the second and third quarters of last year. It is our sense that the level of that spending is now quite high. We have had major weapons systems deliveries that are now coming in; they are producing these things at a very rapid rate. But we don't expect defense spending to continue to grow in real terms at a fast clip. Rather we expect, as we get into the first part of next year, that we will probably have constraints on defense spending--in part because appropriations were cut back at the Administration's request. I would say that if we are wrong, I would probably add more; that is the safe way to go now. A big question mark is the agricultural area; we have substantially more dollars in there than does the Administration. My experience over the years is that even when we do that we are always low. It looks sort of outrageous but basically it turns out to be a really important issue. I think it is too pessimistic to say that things weren't done. I think they were done. And I think they will begin to show up as time goes on.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. KOHN.
text: Those wealth variables we have do, I think, have bearing on M2 growth and on the broad aggregates; it makes some sense. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Does this lead you to the conclusion that the targets should be changed? 
speaker: MR. MORRIS.
text: It leads me to conclude that we probably should not reduce the ranges for the broader aggregates. My tentative idea was to cut half of one percent from the 6 to 9 percent range for this year. I don't see that there is any case for doing that. 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "Well, you can argue the opposite on the basis of your knowledge."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: I suppose we can decide that we will probably come in low and we are willing to. But we are going to have a higher rate next year that encompasses a more or less satisfactory nominal GNP growth but assumes a totally unsatisfactory price level. That is my speech for the afternoon. 
speaker: MR. ANGELL.
text: If you took one of these--the 1987 or 1988 ranges--and you changed one, which one would you prefer to have lower? 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "I can survive that."

Full utterance: For 1987 it is so much a matter of the way we present it; I think it makes very little difference. If we say we are not in the practice of changing the range--which isn't quite true when we are looking at M1--and we are going to keep the range but we really expect to come in low, Mr. Proxmire will say: "Why the heck didn't you change the range?" If I were testifying, I would be hard pressed to answer that question. I would mumble that the Committee didn't want to but nonetheless we think it is going to come in low and eventually we would go on to the next question. I can survive that. I think the way we're sending the message is more in the 1988 ranges than [unintelligible], providing that we say we are willing to come in low in 1987. If we are not going to come in low in 1987 then we are actually saying--these are going to get quite exaggerated--come hell or high water, we are going to get it up in the second half of the year with the implication that that takes a more aggressive easing stance for which we're going to vote.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. GUFFEY.
text: I would note, in that respect, for those who believe that the aggregates are important and that there is some informational content in them, that they're growing at a very nominal rate now. As a result, to further tighten at this point, in anticipation of some higher prices, seems to me to be inappropriate. So I would go for "B" with a $500 million borrowing level until some more information surfaces that would lead us away from that. Lastly, I would prefer to leave the language with respect to the dollar in the directive because, in my view, monetary policy has to act against a depreciation in the dollar that becomes fast, no matter what the cause. And, as a result, I would leave it in, and I would even leave it at a fairly high level of visibility in the directive. 

CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. "I don't know if this is a typical result of this type of activity."

Full utterance: Thank you. If we averaged everybody, we'd get a different result than if we averaged the voting members by themselves. I don't know if this is a typical result of this type of activity.

Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MS. SEGER.
text: As I read the growth numbers in Germany, Japan, Canada, and some other countries, it seems to me that they are not all that robust anyway. They do depend a lot upon their business dealings with us and, therefore, I can't imagine that we wouldn't take many of them with us, which in turn, would make our new-found ability to export a lot more difficult to take advantage of because you have to have somebody to buy those exports that we now can produce efficiently. So, to summarize, I just am concerned. And I really think that we ought to watch the incoming data extremely carefully for signs of more weakness than we are now expecting. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Governor Kelley. 

MR. KELLEY. "I would like to comment briefly on Jerry Corrigan's concern about the high level of debt, which has been one of my favorite themes also."

Full utterance: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I think most things have been said, but just to get on the record here: While I agree with Bob Boykin and others that the situation is fragile, particularly in the Eleventh District, which I am still pretty close to, I share Bob Heller's view that there is a lot of room for being optimistic about a light at the end of the tunnel. The risks here, I think, are two primarily. Number one, as Ed Boehne and others have said, no more shocks is the key. If we can avoid that, I think things will be enormously optimistic. I also agree with Governor Seger that it is very important that we--and I mean we in the corporate sense--do whatever we can to avoid a recession, which is in nobody's interest at a time like this. So, those are the two things that I would like to keep a weather eye to: have no more shocks and avoid a recession to the extent that we can do that. I would like to comment briefly on Jerry Corrigan's concern about the high level of debt, which has been one of my favorite themes also. I think that ties together with Frank Morris' comment about the pressure for market share that people feel. The creation of all of this debt has put people in a situation where there is enormous pressure to produce; that's not only true for foreign economies and their pressure to maintain market share here but it is also true domestically. People who are in debt need to keep their jobs. So perhaps if there is a good side to all of this debt creation, it lies in the fact that it puts tremendous pressure on everybody to be productive and, thus, it should have a long-term downward drag on the inflationary concerns that we all have.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN CORRIGAN.
text: I don't think it exists. The only other point I'd make is on this question of a measured approach to what we are trying to do here. I favor alternative "B" as Governor Johnson defined it a moment ago. But let me, if it's agreeable to you, Mr. Chairman, suggest some language here. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Go ahead, sure. 

VICE CHAIRMAN CORRIGAN. "And I would remove the next sentence after the semicolon completely."

Full utterance: This is built on Variant I, and I think it gets at a lot of the things that you have been saying. The first sentence, without prejudging decreasing or maintain or whatever would read: "In the implementation of policy for the immediate future, the Committee seeks to [decrease somewhat/maintain/increase slightly] the degree of pressures on reserve positions sought in recent days." Tom, I think that gets at your point. And I would remove the next sentence after the semicolon completely. Go down to the next sentence "The Committee ..."

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. GUFFEY.
text: Also, I would join Tom Melzer in his proposal to do it, first of all, as quickly as possible, and secondly, under the umbrella of uncertainty that surrounds the year-end. I would opt for alternative (3) in the sense that we shouldn't totally ignore the federal funds rate over this next three-to four-week period. But I think the focus should be on the borrowing level and-- 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Well, you said nonborrowed reserves. Did you mean that? 

MR. GUFFEY. "And I'd do it under the umbrella, or the smokescreen, of the year-end uncertainty."

Full utterance: No, no, I beg your pardon, I didn't. I should not have said that; I meant a borrowing target. And I'd do it under the umbrella, or the smokescreen, of the year-end uncertainty.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: MS. SEGER.
text: I'll move it. 
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN CORRIGAN.
text: I'll move. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Approved without objection. Mr. Sternlight. 
speaker: MR. STERNLIGHT.
text: [Statement--see Appendix.] 

CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. "I'm sort of working this in reverse, but let me ask for a motion to ratify Peter Sternlight's transactions"

Full utterance: Thank you. I'm sort of working this in reverse, but let me ask for a motion to ratify Peter Sternlight's transactions and then I'll ask for questions of both.

Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. BOEHNE.
text: No, you would say "to maintain the slightly easier"-- 
speaker: MR. ANGELL.
text: It's just that I think--apparently most think--that the $200 million borrowings is consistent with the existing conditions. 
speaker: MR. BOEHNE.
text: But you would say that you would maintain the slightly easier degree of pressures sought in recent days. 
speaker: MS.   SEGER.
text: Would you say confirm the easing? 
speaker: MR. BOEHNE.
text: That captures it. 

CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. "Oh no, that strikes me as--"

Full utterance: Oh no, that strikes me as--

Opinion: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. PARRY.
text: Okay, thank you sir. 
speaker: MR. TRUMAN.
text: It could also be a little more. I must say you try to put it down and-- 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: President Black. 
speaker: MR. BLACK.
text: Mr. Chairman, I was just going to ask Ted: Have you redone your projections of net exports since you got the Census merchandise trade figures? 

MR. TRUMAN. "So that's not going to change anything."

Full utterance: Essentially, they are very close, [even] with the revision. Although the June number is "bad", the May revision was quite large and in fact if anything, the two together were a little better than we expected in our forecast. They were a little worse than what was implicit in the GNP numbers. But it translates to something like maybe a 10th or two at an annual rate on the second-quarter real GNP. So that's not going to change anything. And both components pretty much matched up with what we suspected.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. MORRIS.
text: I feel that we are making exactly the same kind of mistakes today. I would buy Hoskins' suggestion of moving initially to $700 million with the idea of closing up at an $800 million level. I think that sounds sensible rather than doing it all at once. But I have a very strong feeling that we are moving policy too slowly here. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Governor Seger. 

MS. SEGER. "Well, I guess I'm a "B", $600 million today."

Full utterance: Well, I guess I'm a "B", $600 million today. It's not a new [unintelligible]. First of all, I think the discount rate hike did catch almost everybody in the markets by surprise. Everyone is on vacation, and I don't think that we've had the full impact, particularly in the stock market. Also, we've had several rounds of tightening so far this year and I'm not convinced that all of those have been felt in economic activity yet. Also, I think the foreign exchange markets are very, very important to this process. And I would want to be sure that we didn't get the dollar moving so rapidly north and get it so strong that it would impede our ability to fix our trade imbalances. I think it's important to get that done over the long term. I do believe money matters and I think the monetary aggregates--particularly M2--have been looking quite good, behaving very well. In connection with that, I would go along with Wayne Angell's idea that we move it up. I'm not sure that today I'm willing to put it in spot number one, but I am willing certainly to move it up [in the directive listing of factors]. Some of the indicators of inflation and inflationary expectations, I think, look better than they did a couple of months ago, particularly looking at prices of such things as gold, oil, certain commodities. And I realize we have a weak producer price index and some of those, but I think the more sensitive price numbers are not looking necessarily worse. As I said, I would go for a $600 million borrowing target, and I guess I would prefer a symmetrical directive, but I can certainly live with an asymmetric one.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): contradiction
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. PRELL.
text: Using the model--which I've already indicated is an imperfect predictor of these responses--if you took out the interest rate increase and just held the funds rate stable the model would take off maybe 1/3 of a percent in real growth this year and something over 1/2 a percent next year. That means that we still would have a perceptible weakening in growth and likely some slight edging up in the unemployment rate. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Ted, can I ask a question on the effect of the rise in the oil price in the last couple of weeks on the Saudi Arabian fiscal situation? A couple of weeks ago, as I recall, it looked as though the rapidly deteriorating fiscal situation in Saudi Arabia and the pressures on the oil price would likely come, with the Saudis having to increase their liftings to meet their revenue requirements, which would accelerate the price level decline. Is there any way of making a judgment as to whether the recent runup in spot crude prices has altered the situation in a way in which they need not move the liftings at this point? 

MR. TRUMAN. "Well, it clearly works in that direction, though it all depends a bit on what one thinks the current meeting will produce for the balance of 1989."

Full utterance: Well, it clearly works in that direction, though it all depends a bit on what one thinks the current meeting will produce for the balance of 1989. I have not seen any reports that suggest that the Saudis will step up production because of their fiscal situation or that they do not need to step up their production because prices have moved up. Posted prices have not moved to the same degree as spot prices, although--

Opinion: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: We now move to the general economic evaluation. Messrs. Prell and Truman. 
speaker: MR. PRELL.
text: [Statement--see Appendix.] 
speaker: MR. TRUMAN.
text: [Statement--see Appendix.] 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Questions for either gentleman? 

MR. SYRON. "My question has to do with the Nynex strike."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. JOHNSON.
text: And what are the costs and benefits of that? But I wanted an answer to that question I had about relative prices. 
speaker: MR. GREENSPAN.
text: Manley, if I might, I'd just say that I wonder whether that's really an answerable question without knowing the form of the shock. Clearly, it's the type of thing that we always address when we see-- 
speaker: MR. JOHNSON.
text: What do you mean? 

CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. "Well, for example, it makes a big difference when what we're dealing with is a $20 oil shock or a $3 oil shock, or a--"

Full utterance: Well, for example, it makes a big difference when what we're dealing with is a $20 oil shock or a $3 oil shock, or a--

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. KEEHN.
text: Therefore, from that perspective, the inflation outlook has improved. On the labor side, costs are up; most of it continues to be on the benefits side as opposed to basic wages and, therefore, the outlook doesn't seem negative. Net, it seems to me that the outlook for next year continues to be positive but certainly moderate. But I do think at this point that the risks are very much on the down side; at the same time, I believe the outlook for inflation perhaps has improved a bit. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: President Parry. 

MR. PARRY. "With regard to Boeing, the Boeing settlement is quite complex and we've been trying to price it out."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN CORRIGAN.
text: But I think we've got to be extremely careful not to sanction it because of its causes. So sensitive, yes; but sanction, no. In terms of policy, I see three options and they're not "A," "B," and "C" in Bluebook terms. Basically they are: first, to keep an asymmetric--perhaps a strongly asymmetric--directive and do nothing right now; second, to do something like what the Chairman just said, which essentially would mean moving 1/4 point on the funds rate or $125 million on borrowing while keeping an asymmetric directive; and third, to do the quarter point on the funds rate and the corresponding borrowing adjustment now but go back to a symmetric directive. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Jerry, I was going [toward the third]-- 

VICE CHAIRMAN CORRIGAN. "Well, I myself would come out in my own camp three."

Full utterance: Okay. Well, I myself would come out in my own camp three. In other words, I'd take the borrowings down a notch right now, take the funds rate down a notch right now, and have a symmetric directive going forward. The fundamental reason why I would do that I would translate in terms of what I earlier called the wiggle factor--trying to kind of wiggle through this period. But in doing that, I would not in any way want to associate myself with some other statements that have been made that might suggest coming out the same place but for different reasons. I am not terribly uncomfortable with where we are and I do think that looking further out the risks could change. So, I'd say get this move behind us; do it right here today at the Committee meeting and accompany it with a symmetric directive going forward. Thank you.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): contradiction
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: So, if anyone would like to-- 
speaker: MR. ANGELL.
text: Yes, I would. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: You can't move and-- 
speaker: MR. ANGELL.
text: Oh yes you can. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: You can't move to amend your own-- 

MR. ANGELL. "And if my suggestion gets a second, we can [be done] with it."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. ANGELL.
text: I know from the experience in 1986 that once we've eased it sometimes takes a lot longer for us to change direction to tighten than it does to stop tightening and ease, because everybody likes to ease. I just have a very strong compulsion at this point to be looking for an opportunity to get the fed funds rate up to where I think it ought to be. I'd be much more satisfied with an 8-3/4 percent fed funds rate than with an 8-1/4 percent rate. I just don't think today is the time to do it. I certainly hope we'll be ready to do it when we need to. 

MR. HOSKINS. "That sounds like alternative "C" to me, Wayne."

Full utterance: That sounds like alternative "C" to me, Wayne.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): neutral
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: The question is: What option do we choose? One option is to do nothing. And it may well be that we should do nothing until we come to grips with the fundamental question. That's clearly an option, but I do think we at least ought to make that judgment explicitly if in fact that's the option the Committee chooses to adopt. President Parry. 

MR. PARRY. "Mr. Chairman, since you characterized the sentence as an anachronism, why don't we choose the environmentally sensitive solution and eliminate it?"

Full utterance: Mr. Chairman, since you characterized the sentence as an anachronism, why don't we choose the environmentally sensitive solution and eliminate it?

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. FORRESTAL.
text: Well, that's right. It is implicit and that's why I favor doing away with the sentence. But if anyone felt they wanted to have language, I would prefer broad language like that rather than tying it to the funds rate or to economic conditions. But you're right, it is implicit. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: President Boehne. 

MR. BOEHNE. "It's also full of irony because if you look at the operational paragraph, it's the only reference to the federal funds rate yet we essentially peg the federal funds rate and we are [talking about] eliminating that reference."

Full utterance: I think this discussion shows that we really don't want to face up to the major issues that confront us, because it strikes me as being clearly a minor issue on our agenda today. It's also full of irony because if you look at the operational paragraph, it's the only reference to the federal funds rate yet we essentially peg the federal funds rate and we are [talking about] eliminating that reference. I don't think it makes a lot of difference whether we keep it or not. I would think that the most accurate sentence to put in would be what John LaWare just suggested because that does explicitly keep in [language regarding the Chairman's] discretion to call for Committee consultation and it does refer to what we've been using all along, and that is a fairly wide range of economic and financial variables. But I'm prepared to support practically anything because I don't think it makes a lot of difference.

Opinion: yes