kakeith406/op-fed huggingface dataset:
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. FORD.
text: The state had its slowest [tourist] season in the last ten years in the southern part of Florida and that also affected related industries. The lumber industry, which is big in our area, is also in dire straits because of the housing situation; the carpet industry in Georgia, where we have the capital of the world's carpet business, is beginning to come under some stress. Putting all of this together, my feeling is that overall we have a mixed picture. The economy is moving sideways. Some of the industries are prospering and the ones we would expect to be hurt are being hurt. 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "[They think] the course is certainly the right one."

Full utterance: I must say that among the bankers I have talked with there's a growing sense of concern about small and medium size businesses. Several of the bankers have commented that there are bankruptcies that are in [train]--that at this point, nothing can be done to defer them and they're just plain going to happen. Despite that, just to echo Tony's comments, I haven't talked to anybody I would regard as a responsible individual who would suggest that we ought to change what we're doing. [They think] the course is certainly the right one. I just want to comment a bit on bankruptcies. Though that is a statistic that is available and is followed, there are also a lot of people who are just quietly going out of business at this point, and that is not a statistic that we can follow very easily. And there are a lot of people who feel that some of these small and medium size companies are simply getting what they can out of the business before they actually have to go into bankruptcy. So, this is having an adverse impact on that group. Let me ask Jim Kichline something on what he said about construction. My impression is that major construction is holding up pretty well in terms of orders and that kind of thing. Is that right?

Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. GUFFEY.
text: They recognize that the relief they need is legislative relief rather than an easing of interest rates through monetary policy. It seems to me a rather curious turn. I understand that today is the day they're going to present keys to everybody. I met with them last week and their message is for the Federal Reserve to hold tight but that they need relief. 

MR. SCHULTZ. "That was exactly the [sentiment]: I'm dying, what are you doing to me?"


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. AXILROD.
text: For the fourth quarter a number of 7 percent also was put down, which will probably be missed and probably will be understood. But if the Committee then decides to put down a November-December number that is also 7 percent, people are going to wonder after you've missed that one. This would be your third try. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: That is partly what bothers me. 
speaker: MR. FORD.
text: We're becoming predictable. 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "We keep promising these short-term results that we don't get."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: I don't know what the lesson is to that. But it was an extremely erratic picture. It was poor-- 
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN SOLOMON.
text: But they don't have the innovation and the technology-- 
speaker: MR. TRUMAN.
text: They had gradually declining interest rates; that is the thing that has helped. 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "But the discrepancies in the numbers were even larger than we had."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. GUFFEY.
text: That's coupled with the thought you also expressed that we would move against any evidence above zero and would tolerate or accept and be grateful for anything below zero. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: That's right. Precisely. 
speaker: MR. GUFFEY.
text: I think that's precisely what I'd like to see happen. 
speaker: MS. TEETERS.
text: We could fall off the cliff on the other side. 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "If it began declining further, we might well [respond]."

Full utterance: Look, this is about degree. I'm saying we don't move very hastily if M1 begins falling. If we got a couple of weeks of decline--let's say in a few weeks it fell off $6 billion just to pick that number out of the air--the market would be easing because we would be quite satisfied with that and could afford to be somewhat more relaxed about it. I'm not making a fine judgment as to how much to let borrowing go down. I'm saying we wouldn't at the very least begin making discretionary adjustments and we wouldn't begin pumping more money in than the path said with a fairly sizable decline in M1. We'd say we were happy about that. We might let the automatic [response] that Bob Black was referring to work, but we wouldn't begin taking aggressive action to keep [borrowing] up while [M1] declined by $5 or $6 billion. We'd be delighted. If it began declining further, we might well [respond]. Now, just where the number is, I don't know. I have some figures that may not be out of the ballpark. The preliminary figures have been very poor in terms of indicators, but suppose it came out [as a decline of] more than $2 billion--say, $2-1/2 billion, which it could easily do. And suppose we had another decline of that magnitude the following week. One can always hope. We would then have a $5 billion decline and a sizable decline may be in train for February and I think we just ought to be delighted. If that continued, then we would expect to see some easing in the market, but would not be aggressive in trying to offset the decline during this 2- or 3-week period. We'd welcome the decline.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): contradiction
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: That's in process now, isn't it? 
speaker: MR. KEEHN.
text: I hear a lot of gossip. Harvester, frankly can't [mirror] the GM and Ford settlements. They've got to get more [concessions]. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Quite a lot more, I would think. 

MR. KEEHN. "Whether they can or not I don't know, because the attitude between management and the UAW, as you know, is very poor there."

Full utterance: They have to get a lot more. Whether they can or not I don't know, because the attitude between management and the UAW, as you know, is very poor there. I don't know of any tangible information about those discussions.

Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. AXILROD.
text: That's how I would respond to it. Maybe Jim-- 
speaker: MR. KICHLINE.
text: No, I wouldn't [disagree]. 
speaker: MS. TEETERS.
text: But, Steve, doesn't that prove that the congestion that we're anticipating is not in this calendar year but next year? 

MR. AXILROD. "But the quarterly model, which is of course often wrong, would suggest growth at these interest rates also."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. BOYKIN.
text: Yes, we've had a lot. We're also now beginning to get stories--the press are making a lot of it, or at least are writing about it a lot--about people who have come down to the land of milk and honey and are unable to find jobs and they are living in campers, are out of money, and don't have enough money to go back home. That's pretty isolated. But yes, we've had a lot of in-migration. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Mr. Balles. 

MR. BALLES. "I'd like to hear how the staff would answer that question."

Full utterance: Basically, in the Twelfth District, without going into a lot of detail and more doom and gloom, we figure the economy slipped further into a recession this month. It's not just the forest products industry. Unfortunately, it's almost all the other major industries we have, including aerospace, where commercial orders are down more than defense orders are up, electronics, nonferrous metals, etc. But, really, what I'd like to do is to come back to a question I raised with the staff yesterday and ask it once more, hoping that they are wiser than I am. I raise this in view of the fact that I have a couple of speeches scheduled this week up in the Pacific Northwest for audiences likely not to be terribly friendly given that the unemployment rates are as high as 25 percent in some counties in Washington and Oregon mostly, but not entirely, because of the forest products industry. The $64 dollar question, of course, is: What in the heck is keeping those interest rates up in spite of the fact that we've had great success in bringing the inflation rate down? For a couple of years now I have been more or less promising these same people that if we got the inflation rate down--bit the bullet and persisted in tight money policy--the interest rates would come down sooner or later. Well, they certainly haven't come down as yet. So, while I have my own explanation, I don't consider it terribly convincing even to myself. I'd like to hear how the staff would answer that question. What is keeping those real interest rates up there despite the fact that we've had very marked success, with more success on the horizon, in getting the inflation rate down? If you can help me, I'd be grateful.

Opinion: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. MARTIN.
text: Why don't we move to Jim Kichline, who is here, and others for the report on the economic situation. Jim. 
speaker: MR. KICHLINE.
text: [Statement--see Appendix.] 
speaker: MR. MARTIN.
text: Thank you, Jim. Ed. 

MR. BOEHNE. "One of the things that seems to be at work here is that they see a longer-term deterioration of their competitive position going out into '83, '84, '85, and '86."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MS. TEETERS.
text: It's not an intolerable period of time to let policy run fairly freely. And if we're wrong, we can reverse ourselves at that point. But at least we ought to experiment to see if we can bring ourselves out of this [recession]. 
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN SOLOMON.
text: That would mean a very sudden drop to about 12 percent. 
speaker: MS.   TEETERS.
text: Well, I have no-- 

VICE CHAIRMAN SOLOMON. "If we started with $300 million borrowing, that would be a very sudden move, not a gradual one."

Full utterance: If we started with $300 million borrowing, that would be a very sudden move, not a gradual one.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: We have whatever it is implied in the normal course of events; the tolerance sentence would apply to both. 
speaker: MR. BALLES.
text: Okay, all right. 
speaker: MR. PARTEE.
text: Well, I would prefer 9 percent for M2. M2 has been running strong relative to expectations almost persistently for the last year or more. And, with the tax cut, I certainly think it's likely to run strong in the period to come. 

MR. GRAMLEY. "If we were so fortunate as to see interest rates decline also, there would be the usual lag in the downward adjustment of yields on money market mutual funds and hence a tendency for [funds to move] into those from market instruments, which would help keep the M2 numbers up."

Full utterance: If we were so fortunate as to see interest rates decline also, there would be the usual lag in the downward adjustment of yields on money market mutual funds and hence a tendency for [funds to move] into those from market instruments, which would help keep the M2 numbers up. So, I would prefer 9 percent also.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): contradiction
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. BLACK.
text: Steve, I don't think there's anything incompatible with what we did [in Richmond] and what you did here. You have not used semi-logs on this scale. So, on the vertical scale, an absolute drop there would be comparable to a much smaller drop down here. In the figures that we had looked at back to '54 and '49, the change in velocity lagged one or two quarters was really not that different. So, we were talking about two slightly different things. 

MR. AXILROD. "A general point I made earlier in the evening, Mr. Chairman, was that whether you look at velocity contemporaneously or lagged, there is a marked change in the behavior of velocity in '82 relative to historical experience."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. BLACK.
text: I was trying to explain why ours was high and it was based upon an assumption that it would bounce back, which it may well not do. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: One percent, historically, would not be much of a bounceback. 
speaker: MR. PARTEE.
text: No, it's-- 
speaker: MR. BLACK.
text: No, we assumed about 5 percent. That was really the reason I went into what you thought I was going into prematurely: to justify our high forecast. 

MR. AXILROD. "But it is of interest, Mr. Chairman, that a lot of the slide occurred when interest rates were going up cyclically."

Full utterance: But it is of interest, Mr. Chairman, that a lot of the slide occurred when interest rates were going up cyclically. And in '71 when they didn't go up cyclically, the increase was 2.9 or something like that on velocity.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): neutral
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. GUFFEY.
text: And I'd maybe not put any language in that suggests that we'll continue this restraint until we see the aggregates growing at some lower rate, because that also would-- 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Well, yes, I think you're forced to that. Just to be clear: I'm not arguing for or against it at this point. I think you have to put in some language that says we would seek to reduce--or I suppose you could live with this language if the discount rate is reduced, which isn't your decision. 
speaker: MR. BLACK.
text: [Unintelligible] true, but it's-- 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "but we'd do it with a lower discount rate."

Full utterance: Well, I think technically in the first sentence or two it could be maintain the reserve restraint but we'd do it with a lower discount rate. We would just go ahead and reduce the discount rate on some bright day. I think that would satisfy Roger's position, as I understand it.

Opinion: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Well, I guess it is the consensus; let's stop talking about that aspect. I understand there may be some opposition to that. 
speaker: MR. FORD.
text: That's why I didn't bring it up. 
speaker: MR. BALLES.
text: Just to make my own point clear, in response to Bill's comments: I agree that that has been the strategic mistake we've made in the past, but I don't agree that we have already overstayed ease. I think we need a little more ease; that's where our judgments differ. 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "We can just say that."

Full utterance: All right. Barring another meeting and reconsideration in the event things change from the way people now see them, it looks like we're not going to tighten on reserves. So, presumably we say that. Now we still have the question: What do we say beyond that, if anything? We can just say that.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: [Unintelligible.] 
speaker: MR. PRELL.
text: That would be less than market rates in general. 
speaker: MR. ZEISEL.
text: Yes, rates in the market have been moving up. 
speaker: MR. BOYKIN.
text: Either that or I'm in the wrong bank. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Well, who has a case they want to make for a markedly different business forecast? 

MR. CORRIGAN. "I won't make the case, but--"

Full utterance: I won't make the case, but--

Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: In the context of reading these things, it reads--whether we aim at something a little tighter than last time or not and can't make it-- 
speaker: MR. ROBERTS.
text: Why don't we just say-- 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: The changes have been so modest that-- 
speaker: MS. TEETERS.
text: Well, where are you going to start our arguing: between increase or existing? Isn't that just-- 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "but that's the substantive thing."

Full utterance: I think that's right. We can explain it differently but that's the substantive thing. [Unintelligible] and in my mind what this is missing is any recognition, if this is what you want to put in there, that if these aggregates came in low we might reverse it, or if business came in less than we were anticipating, we might be inclined to reverse it.

Opinion: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. MARTIN.
text: And then close with "Lesser restraint would be acceptable...." Now, that isn't completely consistent; it needs a little editing once you tack it all together like that. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Well, my problem is that I lose sight of just how it--. I understand adding this other sentence; I don't think there's any great problem with that. 
speaker: MR. MARTIN.
text: The lesser restraint? 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "The fact is we haven't got much restraint."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN SOLOMON.
text: I hear people talk about it in the banks and in the markets. I don't see how we have even a pretense of a scientific basis for working with and making projections on the basis of what may be a very unpredictable velocity situation. I don't understand why we would stick our necks out because we can do enough tightening based on the movements of M2, M3, and credit and the real economy without setting out a series of projections that have better than a 50-50 chance of turning out to be wrong again. I don't really understand; I guess many of you, including maybe the staff, must have much more faith that the range of predictability is going to be substantially narrowed. I don't believe that. 

MR. WALLICH. "And [if] we ignore it, we're losing credibility as well as probably [unintelligible]."

Full utterance: I just think that there is such a thing as Ml and the market watches it. And [if] we ignore it, we're losing credibility as well as probably [unintelligible].

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: There is only one way to do that. If we in fact move a little, then we say we moved a little and leave the implication that at this point we don't see any reason to move any more. 
speaker: MS. TEETERS.
text: We've already moved. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: All right, we have moved. 
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN SOLOMON.
text: Are you prepared to go that far? 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "Well, that depends upon what we do here, I guess."

Full utterance: Well, that depends upon what we do here, I guess. I don't see how we can give that impression without moving a bit here. If we move a little here, we can leave the impression that we may have a little tightening but there's nothing else in the offing other than what we're in the process of doing immediately. That probably won't calm them down. I don't think [the market] is going to be calmed down until something happens like the money supply going down or the economy showing a bad month or something.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): entailment
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. CORRIGAN.
text: For September-to-December 5 to 6 percent gets you almost up to the top of alternative A. 
speaker: MR. PARTEE.
text: Or almost down to "C." 
speaker: MR. MARTIN.
text: Somewhere between "A" and "C." 
speaker: MR. PARTEE.
text: It's just an indicator. We're not even running on this. 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "But 5 to 6 percent is all right with me."

Full utterance: I don't mind putting in "7 percent or less," as a matter of fact. I'd just put in the "or less" to take account of the fact that we've had some [slowing]. But 5 to 6 percent is all right with me.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. BLACK.
text: So, that supports your position. It also supports Lyle's. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: None of it sounds to me like it supports why the inflation rate was 12 to 13 percent and now is 4 to 5 percent, but that's beside the point. We need to make a decision here. 
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN SOLOMON.
text: Maybe the conclusion is that you need an erratic enough policy to eventually bring about a recession that brings down the inflation. 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "What we're talking about is that this snugging up, if that is the right term, might well come about early in January."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: No, I am testifying on Tuesday, but we will send the material up by Monday. We'll send it up late on Monday and that's probably the latest we will release it in order to avoid-- 
speaker: MR. PARTEE.
text: We'll release it before you actually present it? 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Just a thought: I might do it on Sunday and everybody would get it together on the weekend. 
speaker: MS. TEETERS.
text: That's a considerable change in the [Congressional] committee's procedures; usually they want to have it released at the time that the committee meeting is held. 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "And the Senate committee isn't very happy about--"


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. BERNARD.
text: Staff Director and Secretary, Stephen Axilrod Assistant Secretary, Normand Bernard Deputy Assistant Secretary, Nancy Steele General Counsel, Michael Bradfield Deputy General Counsel, James Oltman Economist, James Kichline Economist (International), Edwin Truman. Associate Economists from the Board: Donald Kohn; David Lindsey; 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Those are the two additions, I think. 
speaker: MR. BERNARD.
text: Michael Prell; Charles Siegman; and Joseph Zeisel. Associate Economists from the Reserve Banks: Joseph Burns; John M. Davis; Richard Davis; Richard Lang; and Gary Stern. 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "We have two more, I think."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. GUFFEY.
text: In other words, the latter approach would involve adjusting the borrowing level in some measure to moderate the increase, if I understand [that regime]. If we go with the post-1979 regime then we're going to get a one-for-one result--a half point discount rate increase produces a half point rise in the federal funds rate. If we use the post-1982 practice, we moderate it by adjusting the borrowing level. I think Steve appropriately raised this issue of whether it will be incorporated in some measure in the directive. But some expression from the Desk or the Chairman as to how they would react to a discount rate increase is important to deciding whether to go with alternative A, B, or C. 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "But I will accept any comments anyone wants to make here as to how one manages one's affairs in the interim."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. MARTIN.
text: But isn't there some difference of view here as to how much tighter or less accommodative [we should be]? 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: I made the minimum statement that I don't think anybody wants to misspecify here in the sense that it gives the market some notion that, in the newspaper parlance, there is an easing of policy. 
speaker: MR. WALLICH.
text: That would be contrary to expectations and very confusing. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Let me just say that whatever [borrowing] number we arrive at here, I think we need some flexibility to manage things so that at the minimum that impression is not created. 
speaker: MS. TEETERS.
text: On the other hand, with some exceptions, I don't think there's strong sentiment to ratchet the rate rapidly. 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "But could I at least assume by my very modest statement that if by some development the borrowing turned out to be quite consistent with a 9-3/4 percent federal funds rate, that we haven't got enough borrowing?"

Full utterance: That is an entirely different question. I don't want to disagree. But could I at least assume by my very modest statement that if by some development the borrowing turned out to be quite consistent with a 9-3/4 percent federal funds rate, that we haven't got enough borrowing?

Opinion: no