kakeith406/op-fed huggingface dataset:
Prior discussion:
speaker: MS. JOHNSON.
text: Well, I'd say that the improvement that's apparent in Argentina--whether it will be long-lasting is a different question--no doubt has had an impact in getting people to use the domestic currency there. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: That's the reason I asked if there were any regional or country concentrations, but Dino says no. 
speaker: MR. KOS.
text: It's everywhere. 
speaker: MR. PARRY.
text: Do we have any data on shipments of euros? Could there be a substitution process under way? 

MR. KOS. "I don't believe the size of those countries, which is fairly modest, would be large enough to explain what we've seen."

Full utterance: I have not seen any data on that. I don't believe that the ECB makes those data available if they have them. Obviously, the euro is becoming used more actively. Some countries in eastern Europe have currency boards, but I don't know that that would explain the shift in the reflow of U.S. currency. I don't believe the size of those countries, which is fairly modest, would be large enough to explain what we've seen.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. BERNANKE.
text: Obviously, bad communication is much worse than no communication, but I wouldn't want to rule out communication completely as a way of trying to enhance our arsenal. Thank you. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Governor Olson. 
speaker: MR. OLSON.
text: I support both parts of the recommendation, and I also look forward to our meeting in September regarding communications. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Governor Kohn. 

MR. KOHN. "But like Governor Bernanke, I think we need to work on how we talk about our assessments and judgments regarding the economy and our objectives going forward, without perhaps being very specific."

Full utterance: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also support both parts of your recommendation. I agree with those who've said that it's very difficult to talk about the future. And I play second fiddle to no one in my humility regarding my ability to forecast; as you can attest to over the years, that humility is well earned. I also agree with President Poole that it would be very risky and counterproductive to promise to keep rates at a particular level for a certain period of time. But like Governor Bernanke, I think we need to work on how we talk about our assessments and judgments regarding the economy and our objectives going forward, without perhaps being very specific. To the extent that the markets make their judgments about future rates with a more accurate estimate or knowledge of what we're thinking about, we're going to get better feedback from the markets. The markets are going to act in a more stabilizing way even when they don't agree with us, which is fine. But they need to know what we're thinking about in order to do a good job of assessing how the 800-pound gorilla in the money markets views the outlook. So, while I agree that we need to give more thought to it, I haven't given up entirely on trying to do something in terms of how we communicate about the future. Thank you.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. GRAMLICH.
text: I think we can convey Roger's sense of the message in that last sentence but cut down the use of the word "disinflation" by one, by dropping "aimed at raising" all the way through to "disinflation." In other words, Roger wants to convey that policy accommodation can be maintained for a considerable period, and we can do that without all these words and without raising the word count on disinflation. So my first point is to offer that as a compromise. Second, I actually like this sentence, but procedurally I would not be upset if we waited until next time, after we really think through all the implications, to include it. So my first preference would be just to drop the phrase I mentioned, and my second choice would be to hold it over until next time. 

MR. HOENIG. "If we just repeat what we said before, we're signaling to everyone that policy is on hold."

Full utterance: On balance, I think it would be preferable to drop the last sentence because it does change the statement, which gets attention, and then expectations change. If we just repeat what we said before, we're signaling to everyone that policy is on hold. In terms of policy announcements or implications, I think that is the safer course, and we can have a full discussion of these communication issues at the September meeting. I recognize that this last sentence comes out of the semiannual monetary policy report, but if it becomes part of the Committee's statement, it will receive more emphasis.

Opinion: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Then we'll go to a broad discussion of the issues. I might add for those of you who have specific points of view that differ from what Vincent laid out or from what I laid out, we will use the discussion period for you to expound on your views. If your commentary gets too extended, people will get up and leave! [Laughter] Why don't we take a short break. [Dessert break] 

CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. "Let's see if we can get most of that out of the way and completed this evening, if possible."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. MOSKOW.
text: We said that although the "foreseeable future" is "intended to cover an interval extending beyond the next FOMC meeting," the concept is necessarily elastic. [Laughter] 
speaker: MR. FERGUSON.
text: What could be clearer! 
speaker: MR. MOSKOW.
text: It clearly refers to an elastic period that goes beyond the next FOMC meeting. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: President Stern. 

MR. STERN. "Second, I think we should try to accelerate the release of the minutes whatever we do with the statement."

Full utterance: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I count myself among those who don't think that our current policies are all that bad and in need of a major overhaul. I agree with most, but not all, of the comments that President Moskow just made. So let me offer a few quick suggestions and express a couple of concerns. As I understood your conversation with Bob Parry, one suggestion is to use the Bluebook more extensively to spell out some alternatives and give at least a rough idea of the language that would go with them. Whether that's alternative 4 in Vincent's material, I'm not sure. In any event, I think that's a constructive suggestion, and we ought to think about trying to implement that over time. Second, I think we should try to accelerate the release of the minutes whatever we do with the statement. In other words, I don't think moving up the publication of the minutes is contingent upon what we put in the statement. I believe the minutes are an underutilized asset. We spend a good deal of time and go to a lot of trouble to prepare them as it is, and then we release them at a time when people are no longer interested in them. It seems to me that they are an accurate representation of what has been discussed at a meeting, and we ought to try to get them out while they're still relevant. In my view they would do a better job of providing a description and conveying the nuances of what was going on at the meeting than anything else that we could do. So if I would urge anything strongly, it would be the earlier release of the minutes. I personally believe that whatever added resources it would take to accomplish that would probably be well worth it.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Questions for Vincent? 
speaker: MR. PARRY.
text: Vincent, in the top panel of exhibit 4, there is a column labeled "unwelcome fall." One thing we've learned in the last two quarters is that productivity has been extraordinarily strong. Certainly the probability of a decline in inflation from, let's say, the level in the forecast may be reasonably remote, but the proportion of it that may be welcome may have changed because of a shift in supply. There's no mechanism for reflecting the fact that not all declines in inflation are unwelcome. 

MR. REINHART. "Well, I would say that, on one level, rapid growth in aggregate supply only raises the bar for the growth of aggregate demand that the Committee should desire to get the outcomes it wants."

Full utterance: Well, I would say that, on one level, rapid growth in aggregate supply only raises the bar for the growth of aggregate demand that the Committee should desire to get the outcomes it wants. So in that sense, there still could be unwelcome declines in inflation.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. GUYNN.
text: In fact, I think we may have stayed with the phrase "unwelcome decline in inflation" too long. Those words in the statement don't seem to be reflective of the discussion we had this morning. So I would have a preference for a balanced risks statement on inflation. Thank you. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Governor Kohn. 

MR. KOHN. "I don't expect much to happen, but in my cost-benefit analysis, the downside risks get a little more weight than the upside risks."

Full utterance: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It will come as a surprise to no one that I have at least a mild preference for staying with the inflation risk toward the downside. In my mind, we haven't yet actually seen evidence--we have a lot of anecdotes but no real evidence--that inflation has even stabilized. It is true that core PCE has moved up, though from extremely low levels. But the core CPI continues to decelerate even on a three-month basis. So I'd prefer to be more certain that actual inflation has stopped falling before I can be convinced that the outlook calls for moving to balance on the inflation risks. My second point is that I think we all expect total inflation to decline relative to last year. At least the FOMC members projected inflation of 1 to 11/4 percent this year, which is about 1/2 point less than it was in 2003. Now, a lot of that reflects a projected decline in energy prices, and perhaps it's not unwelcome, but the total is expected to fall. And finally, from my perspective, in a risk-management sense, any decline in inflation from current levels--if it's more than a tenth or so--is more unwelcome than any increase. I think inflation is at such a low level that a decline has more welfare costs potentially over time than a rise. I don't expect much to happen, but in my cost-benefit analysis, the downside risks get a little more weight than the upside risks.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): contradiction
Prior discussion:
speaker: MS. JOHNSON.
text: On the other hand, I was an adult in the 1970s and early 1980s, and I remember periods when the dollar was thought to be a very weak currency. And I remember periods when Federal Reserve policies weren't well regarded. So I'm not about to say that could never happen. I just don't see it happening any time soon. 
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN GEITHNER.
text: So in a sense, you think we control the risk? 

MS. JOHNSON. "But, you know, when I read my own briefing I realize what it means--that this problem is going to continue to grow."

Full utterance: If U.S. macroeconomic policy remains well grounded, if the value of goods in terms of U.S. dollars is well maintained by this Committee, if nature doesn't impose some truly exogenous crazy event on the U.S. economy, and if U.S. fiscal policy could get a little better, I think those are the things that will determine how this situation evolves. But, you know, when I read my own briefing I realize what it means--that this problem is going to continue to grow. And I remember Herb Stein's admonition and say that this situation can't go on; at some point, in some way, an adjustment has to occur. The paper had a rather benign outcome in which the productivity differential just worked its way through the system and things more or less corrected. I can certainly imagine, if the same sort of productivity shock that hit the United States were to become evident abroad--which we keep looking for--that it would accelerate that process even more. And those stories do exist. Those adjustment paths are very credible.

Opinion: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Vice Chair. 
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN GEITHNER.
text: I'm comfortable with the statement and with your recommendation. I just want to raise a question about your "no surprises" rule. That's not quite the way you framed it. I'm a little uncomfortable being in a regime where we never surprise-- 

CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. "That's not what I said."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MS. MINEHAN.
text: I really feel that in our communication we now need to move back to something that says what we did, why we did it, maybe gives some perspective on the balance of risks, and leaves it at that. Whether we move there in December or in February--or in March, April, or May of next year--I don't care, but I'd like us to move there. To be explicit, I'd get rid of paragraph 6. Thank you. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: President Poole. 

MR. POOLE. "If I think about where we were six months ago, I thought it was extraordinarily unlikely that we were going to remain at 1 percent on the funds rate."

Full utterance: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support your recommendation both for the increase in the funds rate and the statement. I'd like to offer just a couple of other observations. The reason the communications process is so important is that it's highly desirable that the market and the Federal Reserve read incoming data the same way and that the interpretation is a correct assessment of the significance of the incoming data. That's not so easy to do but, as Cathy Minehan pointed out earlier, we certainly don't want to run the risk that the market's assessment is simply flowing from what we have said about future policy actions, which when we get to the point of taking action may not reflect our own assessment of the data that have come in. I think that the statement will have to evolve, as you suggest. I'd also like to mention that I think the greater diversity of views around the table reflects the fact that the probability distribution of where we're going to go has become considerably more spread out. Or I'll state it this way: My own probability distribution is considerably more spread out. If I think about where we were six months ago, I thought it was extraordinarily unlikely that we were going to remain at 1 percent on the funds rate. But my own view of where we're going to go has become more spread out, and where we're going to end up six months from now, I think, is going to depend much more on the data that we get in the next six months than anything that I can now put into my forecast. So I think that that divergence of views probably reflects each one of us becoming more uncertain as to where we're going to go.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): entailment
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. KOS.
text: Oh, I see. I'm sure that there would be an effect, but I haven't looked at this. As that paper was taken out, I guess it would tend to reduce the posted spreads. We did see that in the emerging-market indexes, as some countries defaulted and were taken out of the indexes. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: When Argentina came out, it was a huge effect. 

MR. KOS. "The thing I would note is that GM is a smaller component of the BBB index than it would be of the high-yield index."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. KOHN.
text: I always thought a sensible path for policy here would be to go up quickly and then kind of flatten out the trajectory. We kind of got caught in an every-time escalator and never were able to flatten out that trajectory. But we're in a position where we can both be concerned about inflation and put the market on notice that the trajectory of any further rise will be a little flatter. I think that's constructive, and B does that, so I support that language. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN BERNANKE.
text: President Stern. 

MR. STERN. "I'm not exactly sure where right is, and so as a consequence of that I want to make sure that we have some flexibility going forward and that we continue to emphasize the data-driven nature of our decisions."

Full utterance: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Overall, I think policy is currently well positioned to maintain price stability over time, and a 1/4 point increase today, which I favor, will on the margin enhance that position. As I noted earlier this morning, I do think the uncertainty about the inflation outlook has increased, and it may be that the risks are now tilted to the upside. But on the other side of that particular observation is the well-known lag in monetary policy between our actions and their effects. We have cumulatively moved a lot, and some of those moves have been recent, and so I don't think all of the effects are currently evident. In the past, I have emphasized with some frequency the underlying flexibility and resilience of the economy. As a consequence of that, I'm not really worried that we might go too far or overshoot. I think the economy absorbs these things pretty well, but our obligation is to try to get it right. I'm not exactly sure where right is, and so as a consequence of that I want to make sure that we have some flexibility going forward and that we continue to emphasize the data-driven nature of our decisions. I think alternative B accomplishes all of that, so I'm in favor of both the action and the language associated with it.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): entailment
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. REINHART.
text: I would say, President Minehan, that the reference in the minutes of the past two meetings to the staff's marking down the rate of growth of potential has certainly caught the attention of market participants. 
speaker: MS. MINEHAN.
text: Do you think it has caught enough attention that they would still interpret a fourth-quarter growth rate of 21/2 percent or so as okay? 
speaker: MR. REINHART.
text: I think, actually, that the chart I had in my briefing that showed the nine primary dealers' forecast of real GDP tracking above the Greenbook forecast suggests that they may have moved it down but they haven't moved it down as much as the staff. 
speaker: MS. MINEHAN.
text: Okay. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN BERNANKE.
text: President Lacker. 

MR. LACKER. "Governor Kohn, concerning the assessment of risk, I think I heard you say about alternative B+ that you weren't sure what effect it would have."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MS. MINEHAN.
text: You can say a lot that is positive--for example, the timeliness with which we bring the minutes out. Also, I can't see that people have difficulty understanding that we have issues left to resolve. If people ask a question about communications, we can say that we've taken really major steps and that we're contemplating what more we should do to meet the objectives of monetary policy better. So my own view is that, no matter where you stand on this subject, you have a solid track record of Committee action to talk about without even getting into inflation targeting. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN BERNANKE.
text: Vice Chairman Geithner. 

VICE CHAIRMAN GEITHNER. "That distinction is important, I think, because I don't know how you get into repeating or summarizing your past position without inevitably getting into the broader set of choices that we're going to be debating in the Committee."

Full utterance: Let me just say a couple of things. I think Rick's point about education is right. You can make a statement educating people about the virtues of price stability and anchoring long-term inflation expectations and the reason that's important, without taking on the challenge of educating people today about alternative ways of achieving that objective. Our debate about inflation targeting and communications is really about means not ends; and my view about education on the latter issue about means is to avoid taking on the challenge of educating the public until we know where we want to go. Once we know where we want to go, we can figure out how best to create the broader public foundation to make that possible. I'm sure that we'll have different views on that. My second point is about past positions. This is easy for me because I don't have past positions about these issues to echo or to repudiate in public. I would make a slightly different suggestion for the way to respond to those questions from, I think, Bill. You can refer people to your past positions without repeating them in substance and nuance. I don't know what the Chairman and the Vice Chairman of the Board plan to do, but I expect that you won't feel the need in public going forward to repeat your past positions on these issues. I suspect that you will refer people to your past positions without reminding them about what those were. That distinction is important, I think, because I don't know how you get into repeating or summarizing your past position without inevitably getting into the broader set of choices that we're going to be debating in the Committee. One final point, and I think Don said this more eloquently than I can say it, which is that we all have an interest in having this discussion take place below the radar screen of public debate until, again, we have a better sense of where consensus is going to lie. The more we move it into the public debate, the more risk we face of all the concerns that Governor Kohn referred to.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. KROSZNER.
text: For example, today, given that we are having a policy move and I am not sure that everyone around the table had anticipated that move today in their path, will we be articulating that these are not the numbers that we came into the meeting with, but these are the numbers that we think after the policy action has been taken? 
speaker: CHAIRMAN BERNANKE.
text: Yes, let's do that because it will be more consistent with the statement. So let me ask everyone to rethink their risks conditional on our policy move today. 
speaker: MR. KROSZNER.
text: Thank you. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN BERNANKE.
text: Vice Chairman. 

VICE CHAIRMAN GEITHNER. "Bill, I think you asked a good question."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. POOLE.
text: What is the message that comes out of the projections--that is, if I am talking to the press or to others and they say, "What do I make of all of this?" My question to you is, What do you make of all of this? What is the message for the implications for policy or the implications for anything? You know, the data don't really speak for themselves. We are throwing out a lot of stuff here to the market, and what is the market supposed to make of it? 

MR. MADIGAN. "Well, that is a hard question, actually."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. DUDLEY.
text: So right now as we speak, it is ten in the 100 camp, eight in the 75 camp, and two in the 50 camp. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN BERNANKE.
text: Okay. Thank you. Questions? Vice Chairman. 

VICE CHAIRMAN GEITHNER. "I think there was a pretty big change this morning at least in risk perceptions today across a bunch of markets."


Opinion: no