kakeith406/op-fed huggingface dataset:
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: I don't want to [catch] you unawares, Mr. Truman, but it might be appropriate for you to say just a word about what is going on abroad. 
speaker: MR. TRUMAN.
text: Okay. 
speaker: MR. SCHULTZ.
text: To give you a little more time, would you like to have a filibuster? 
speaker: MR. WALLICH.
text: Do you need your pipe? 
speaker: MR. SCHULTZ.
text: You just let the cat out of the bag, Henry! 

MR. TRUMAN. "I might comment that Japan in particular seems to be a serious problem."

Full utterance: The picture is broadly similar to what we have seen here in the sense that the economies abroad have been growing, although it has been small positive growth. It has been quite modest on average over the last several quarters. There have been some signs of a bottoming out: There were increases in the United Kingdom after a very sharp decline; and the German GNP number that came in for the third quarter, just released today finally on a seasonally adjusted basis that one could understand, shows essentially zero growth rather than negative [as it was] in the second quarter. So, there are some signs of a bottoming out, though I think we have marked down the extent to which we see real positive growth in this quarter. We expect at best only a modest rate of acceleration in the course of 1982, reaching something on the order of 2-1/2 percent on average as I recall for the last half of 1982. That is hardly a very robust performance, when you factor in Japan, which in the past, even in the first oil-shock environment, has had a fairly good growth rate relative to the rest of us. Generally speaking, unemployment is expected to continue to rise abroad; and there may be some improvement--maybe a percentage point or a little more--on the price side but not any rapid expansion. One place where we have seen some shift in policies, or at least in that direction relative to everybody else, is France, where a somewhat rapid pickup is expected in both prices and real growth. I might comment that Japan in particular seems to be a serious problem. They had about 4 percent growth this year, which looks good from our perspective, but even the official authorities are not looking for too much next year, which clearly is one of the things that is causing the problem on the external side, the current account side. They just have very weak domestic demands, and that combined with the decline in international commodity prices--imports are weighted in that direction --is part of the reason why the number on their current account position looks so astronomical. Although that might moderate somewhat, it is likely to stay up in that range unless Japan experiences a dramatic rebound, which no one at the moment is particularly projecting.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. MELZER.
text: I just don't think we'd be good enough to cash in that insurance, or however you want to describe it, when we need to. And in that connection, I think there's a good deal of monetary stimulus in train, as Wayne pointed out--whether you look at what has happened to interest rates and in particular short-term real interest rates or whether you look, as we would be more inclined to do, at the behavior of narrow money or reserves over a period of time. There's a good deal of stimulus in the pipeline and I don't think it has all shown through. In fact, and this would be my final point, our view is that if we were to continue this rate of narrow money growth for a sustained period of time, we're probably already risking a somewhat higher inflation rate than the 3 to 4 percent that we're talking about achieving in the forecast period down the road. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Governor Kelley. 

MR. KELLEY. "But I think the staff and everyone else would agree that the question is very much outstanding."

Full utterance: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that what we've all been talking about this morning and what is at the front of all our minds is a very straightforward question with a very ambiguous answer. Is this economy faltering or is it going to falter? If we knew the answer to that question, we'd have a pretty good idea of what to do about policy. The staff forecast is that it's not faltering and is not going to. But I think the staff and everyone else would agree that the question is very much outstanding. I would certainly concur with those who say--and I've said here before--that the consequences of a falter are very severe. And we have to keep that very much in mind and be very concerned about it. But it seems to me as we ponder policy right now that we have to keep in mind the fact that we have a good deal more stimulus coming from what has already been done. Staff studies have indicated that the stimulus that we're going to get from easing actions to date is going to peak in late '91 and the first half of '92. The major part of it is still ahead of us. We all know how much rates have come down. Wayne Angell mentioned 450 plus basis points in the last 28 months. The aggregates may be beginning to move; it is very tentative yet. But I think one can make the case perhaps for this sticker shock and that the portfolio shifts are beginning to abate and may be in the course of beginning to move a little, which will help the aggregates. We just had a drop in the prime rate. Mortgages just went under 9 percent for the first time in a long time. Yields on long-term Treasury securities just went under 8 percent. There's some help still on the way. It seems to me that policy help right now, to the extent that it can be provided and is needed for the economy, may be to reinforce the downward trend in long rates. We have an incipient view now that inflation is going to improve, and we need to encourage that. It seems to me that the best way to do that would be to try to see if we can't hold short rates for the moment.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): contradiction
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. PRELL.
text: We've raised [our forecast of] prices ex food and energy this year; they change Q4 to Q4 by .2 percent, a fairly modest change. 
speaker: MR. SYRON.
text: The second question I have is that I'm rather struck by the change in the [unintelligible] of the Greenbook. Over the next two years where you come out at the [end] is not terribly different from what you had last month. 
speaker: MR. PRELL.
text: That's by design of course. I hope everyone-- 

MR. SYRON. "What would your answer be?"


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. PARTEE.
text: Lower them. 
speaker: MR. RICE.
text: I don't think you would. 
speaker: MS. TEETERS.
text: I don't think you people know what the relationship of the credit aggregate is to GNP, quite frankly. 
speaker: MR. MORRIS.
text: I think we know a lot more about that than we do about the new M2 to GNP. 
speaker: MS. TEETERS.
text: That may be, but I think we know an awful lot more about [the relationship of] interest rates to GNP than we do anything else. 

MR. MORRIS. "The demand for credit is directly related to the level of interest rates."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: The Committee expects that M1 growth at an annual rate of about 6 to 7 percent would be consistent with its objectives for the broader aggregates. Lesser restraint would be acceptable in the context of more pronounced slowing of growth in the monetary aggregates relative to the paths implied by the long-term ranges (taking account of the distortions relating to the introduction of new accounts), or indications of a weakening in the pace of economic recovery." And then the last sentence remains as it is. 
speaker: MS. TEETERS.
text: Would you read the first sentence over again? 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: "For the short run the Committee seeks to maintain generally the existing degree of restraint on reserve positions, anticipating that would be consistent with a slowing from March to June in growth of M2 and M3 to annual rates of about 9 and 8 percent, respectively." 

MR. GUFFEY. "You have discarded the first parenthetical sentence in alternative II and you have tried to incorporate an additional sentence."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. KOHN.
text: --in the early part of the maintenance period, which is unusual, and partly it's the seasonal borrowing that's rising. In the past I've argued that the seasonal borrowing doesn't affect things very much but I think the level of adjustment borrowing is so low that the increase in seasonal borrowing is showing through more; it's not covered up by the noise in adjustment borrowing. 
speaker: MS. SEGER.
text: Do we have an alternative for no change in policy? It seems to me that what we have is: an easing, which is "A;" a slight tightening, which is "B;" and more tightening, which is "C." 

MR. KOHN. "Well, I interpreted alternative B as maintaining about the same funds rate level as we've been running over the last intermeeting period."

Full utterance: Well, I interpreted alternative B as maintaining about the same funds rate level as we've been running over the last intermeeting period. If what you're referencing is what might happen to market rates I agree, as we stated in the Bluebook, that the markets now have an easing built into that. It's quite possible that if the data continue to come in weak the markets will continue to expect an easing and rates may not move very much. But if the data strengthen a little and we don't ease, I think these short-term rates could back up a bit--retracing some, but by no means all, of the decline that occurred over the last intermeeting period. We do have, I think, some sense of a further easing--

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN GEITHNER.
text: But you're not suggesting that we try to aggregate or ask the staff to aggregate our own uncertainties that we convey with our own individual forecasts, right? 
speaker: MS. YELLEN.
text: No, I think that would not be a very useful procedure. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN BERNANKE.
text: There's research at the St. Louis Bank that says that the FOMC forecasts are actually pretty good. Was there another two-hander? President Poole? 

MR. POOLE. "With the analysis of why the forecast has moved we could provide some insight into how our thinking has evolved as a consequence of new information."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. PRELL.
text: Cash flow in the nonfinancial corporate sector is not growing as fast as capital expenditure, and we are seeing a widening of the financing gap. As we go out through the forecast period, the financing gap gets to be sizable enough that at least we would not think that firms will be spending simply because money is coming into their coffers and they have to do something with it. It begins to be a less favorable factor as we move out through 1998 and certainly into 1999. 
speaker: MR. MOSKOW.
text: Thank you. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: President Parry. 

MR. PARRY. "In particular, if this path were embarked upon somewhat sooner than is assumed in the Greenbook forecast, would you modify the response of the economy in light of the possibility that it might generate some financial consequences that are not incorporated in the forecast?"


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. MOSKOW.
text: Even with the 50 basis point easing, the risks remain tilted toward weakness. I am uneasy about the language regarding an intermeeting move. I'm not sure exactly what we gain from it or how it helps us in moving forward. Perhaps we could have more discussion on that. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Governor Meyer. 

MR. MEYER. "It would leave market participants speculating day in and day out about whether we were in or about to hold an emergency meeting to cut the target funds rate."

Full utterance: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My position is very similar to that of Presidents Minehan, Broaddus, and Guynn, a little stronger than President Moskow's. I support your recommendation for a 50 basis point decline in the target funds rate today, along with a statement that the risks remain unbalanced toward economic weakness. But I would very strongly prefer to avoid any direct or explicit hint in our statement of an intermeeting move. I haven't heard much support for a 75 basis point move, so I won't argue the case for 50 as opposed to 75. A 50 basis point move today along with a statement of unbalanced risks as always, as has been pointed out, holds open the possibility of an intermeeting move. But hinting more directly at such a possibility in the statement, especially if we repeat something like the words in our December 19th statement--in effect using a code that will be interpreted as an inclination toward an intermeeting move --would, in my view, be a mistake. It would leave market participants speculating day in and day out about whether we were in or about to hold an emergency meeting to cut the target funds rate. It could aggravate the market's response to every newly reported indicator and it would leave equity prices continually buffeted by such speculation. This type of uncertainty in my view has no up side. My preference to avoid a direct hint of an intermeeting move also reflects my preference for policy decisions to be taken at our regular meetings. To be sure, there are circumstances when an intermeeting move is a valuable part of our toolkit and, Mr. Chairman, you have used this tool sparingly and wisely in the time I've served on this Committee. I am confident you will continue to do so. Still, I do not believe it would be wise to set policy so as to leave the impression that an intermeeting move has a very high probability or to tell the markets that we are so inclined.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. BROADDUS.
text: It seems to me one of the advantages of that would be that it would help to signal the undesirable consequences of not taking policy actions in one direction or the other that we need to take. It might put us in a position to be more proactive in presenting our policy stance and perhaps less defensive in public discussions of monetary policy. I believe that is the procedure the Bank of England uses in its current reporting approach. That is another suggestion I think we ought to look at. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: President Parry. 

MR. PARRY. "I agree with much of what has been said."

Full utterance: I agree with much of what has been said. Just to add to a point that Cathy Minehan was making: This does seem to present us, as a Committee, with an opportunity to discuss in the testimony what we think the role of the aggregates should be. We have spent a great deal of time over the years talking about this issue, and we end up giving the targets more prominence than most of us think is warranted. This may be an opportunity to adopt a procedure that would more closely reflect what we in fact do and what we believe in terms of the weight these statistics versus others should be given.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. REINHART.
text: I could set aside time on the December 9 agenda after the policy decision to consider the matter, and you could decide perhaps not to be bound by the 2:00 p.m. deadline. I could arrange a dinner meeting on December 8, the night before that meeting. Third, this could be the subject of the discussion on the Tuesday afternoon of your next two-day meeting in late January. With any of those options, though, you might want to take into consideration how the public will react to news that the Committee is once again talking about communications, especially if you are not certain that the conversation will bring closure, at least for now. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Why don't you put each question on the table and ask for comments. 

MR. REINHART. "The first question is, Is there any clear preference as to the basic structure of the assessment of the outlook?"


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN GEITHNER.
text: I don't know what we are planning for June--June is a two-day meeting, right? 
speaker: CHAIRMAN BERNANKE.
text: Right. 
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN GEITHNER.
text: So I don't think we can have these conversations before the next round. Let's make sure that we give ourselves time in June and beyond so we can start to talk through this--so that those who didn't speak today about their initial reactions aren't left without the opportunity to engage in this because there's a whole range of things we could address, including the three issues raised so far. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN BERNANKE.
text: President Minehan. 

MS. MINEHAN. "There might be other ways--for example, alternative scenarios, qualitative discussions of risk, or that sort of thing--that seem to some of us preferable."

Full utterance: I take Vice Chairman Geithner's comments very seriously, but I want to raise just one thing because I would like it to get into the survey. We were offered one way of reflecting uncertainty regarding forecasts. There might be other ways--for example, alternative scenarios, qualitative discussions of risk, or that sort of thing--that seem to some of us preferable. If you can phrase a question that would draw out of us other ways in which we might like to characterize the risks around our forecast, I think that would be helpful because I, for one, find the range of distribution of errors kind of difficult.

Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. MCTEER.
text: We tend to agree with their views, and we think the staff projection is about right. If anything, I'm a bit more optimistic. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if the fourth-quarter GDP number came in as a small positive! [Laughter] 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: President Stern. 

MR. STERN. "And I would say that the tourism business has been adversely affected by the weather."

Full utterance: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The latest readings on the District economy are consistent with what we've been seeing and saying about the business news more broadly. Consumer spending has been strong, particularly for home furnishings, electronics, autos, and at bars and restaurants. Housing had a very good year in 2001. Construction activity was strong, and home sales were at record levels. And realtors are optimistic; they think 2002 will be even better than 2001. On the other hand, layoffs have continued. But the unemployment rate Districtwide and in the major metropolitan areas such as the Twin Cities remains in the neighborhood of 4 percent. That suggests that a lot of the laid-off workers either have been absorbed elsewhere in the economy or perhaps have chosen to spend a few months in Florida or Arizona, as Minnesotans are wont to do this time of year, and wait things out there. Manufacturing is struggling but does appear to be stabilizing. And I would say that the tourism business has been adversely affected by the weather. The weather has been too good. But the other side of the coin is that the mild weather has had a very favorable effect on household utility bills, which are running well below last year's. As far as the national outlook is concerned, I think the prospects for the economy are favorable. I don't have any significant quarrel with the Greenbook forecast. My own view is that the first half of the year will probably be a bit slower than in the Greenbook and that the second half may be a little stronger, but overall the difference is not significant. Our VAR forecasting model, which has a pretty good track record except perhaps at turning points, [laughter] has the same general path as the Greenbook, although a bit more subdued. Certainly there is some possibility that the consumer will be a cause for concern, especially if labor market conditions deteriorate further or don't even stabilize. But I'm wondering whether there isn't less of a mystery about consumer behavior than one might otherwise think. After all, disposable income has risen consistently over many years now and household net worth, while down from its March 2000 peak, is still considerably above where it was five or ten years ago. Against that background, I don't find the ongoing strength in consumer spending all that big a surprise.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. MORRIS.
text: A modest easing in rates now, although coming at a time when inflation is very high, could very well forestall a need for very sharp declines in interest rates later on. So I think the moment is now. I'm sure I won't get much support for this proposition, but I feel very strongly that now is the time. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN MILLER.
text: Thank you, Frank. Phil. 

MR. COLDWELL. "It seems to me that our current posture has some elements of restraint but those elements of restraint are coming in the housing field, largely in the usury ceilings and the thrift flows, which of course are the traditional ways."

Full utterance: Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to see the slowing in the economy. I've been hoping for it for a year. I think we're getting some reduction in the level of activity and I hope it continues for a while longer. I think we need to look at our basic objectives here because we have a problem of whether we are aiming to maintain a semblance of real growth or to contain inflation or a combination thereof. It seems to me that our current posture has some elements of restraint but those elements of restraint are coming in the housing field, largely in the usury ceilings and the thrift flows, which of course are the traditional ways. I think we run a risk on two sides. We run a risk of recession, of course, and we run a risk of some acceleration in inflation. The latter stems primarily from what I'd call an energy tax, because we are being hit with a very sizable tax thrown at us by energy costs. I suspect we can weather the food cost problem, especially to the extent that we can open up our borders to further imports, if there is anything to bring in. But I don't think the energy cost impact is going to go away and it is going to [spread] throughout our economy. You may recall the last time around that it took several months if not a year or more [for the energy shock] to [exert] its full impact. I suspect that the retail sales picture is giving us the signal that things are being slowed by energy costs and agricultural or food costs. Frankly, I welcome the slowdown. I'd prefer it hadn't come from further energy cost increases, but maybe over the long haul this will do us a favor and force us into some actions we should have taken six or seven years ago. A s for our monetary policy posture, I still believe that inflation will be our principal problem in the coming months and years. Whether we can achieve a reduction in inflation by a nice slow pattern is something we have not yet proved. I suspect it's going to require more strenuous efforts than have been mounted so far.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes