kakeith406/op-fed huggingface dataset:
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: The economy is soft; in some sense in the very short run there may be some risk of it getting softer rather than stronger. But there is a major risk, which a number of people have alluded to, of a yo-yo performance of the economy. That isn't going to be very helpful in terms of our longer-range objectives if it gets up a head of steam again in a time perspective of 6 months or so. Having said that much, let's proceed. Mr. Ford. 

MR. FORD. "Even if we put it at a tiny fraction of the money market funds, we would say that M-1B has been somewhat stronger than it appears in the adjusted figures."


Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. MORRIS.
text: That we've gone completely monetarist? 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: I think for sure, at this point. 
speaker: MR. PARTEE.
text: What is it, 75 percent of-- 
speaker: MR. MORRIS.
text: Milton Friedman has finally won! 
speaker: MR. FORD.
text: Let's try it and see what happens! 

MS. TEETERS. "I still don't like the phrase about phasing into next year."

Full utterance: I still don't like the phrase about phasing into next year.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. BOYKIN.
text: I have heard of a few instances of a little price concession, but there is not a lot moving right now. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: That is the story I hear when people from farm areas talk to me: that there isn't much movement in the price but there sure aren't any sales, and don't try that price too hard. 
speaker: MR. KEEHN.
text: In our District, when land that was valued at $3500 to $4000 an acre comes up for sale, the price goes down; and they pull it off the market at $2700 or $2800 an acre. The price just doesn't clear the market. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Mr. Roos. 

MR. ROOS. "So, what we do will have a direct bearing, at least as we look at it, rather than just psychological [effects on] decisions that businessmen might be making."


Opinion: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. CORRIGAN.
text: Incidentally, Jim, what was the CPI this morning? 
speaker: MR. KICHLINE.
text: It is up 0.5 [for November] compared to the 0.4 in October. Food prices rose 0.2, the same as in October. And housing performed very well; it was only up 0.4, and that reflects the sizable increase in the mortgage rate and a 3/4 percent decline in home prices. On average, it is a good report. 

MR. CORRIGAN. "At least as far out as one can reasonably see, cash-type investments are probably going to continue to look pretty good."

Full utterance: Anyway, as I said, unless we get a little luckier on prices, I think those targets could be ambitious even allowing for demand shifts. On M2 I find myself attracted to Governor Partee's comments yesterday. I think there is a possibility that we could see some rebound in savings in the fundamental underlying sense next year. At least as far out as one can reasonably see, cash-type investments are probably going to continue to look pretty good. And I, at least, am inclined to the view that the IRA account could be a bigger factor than most of the discussion around the table has suggested so far. It is very attractive to begin with, but the fact that so many companies are going ahead with payroll deduction plans will make it such a simple thing and so attractive from an ease of transactions point of view that that could really generate some momentum in these accounts as the year unfolds. I must say I am perplexed as to what that means. I might even be prepared to make an argument that IRA accounts don't belong in M2 because they are a much more permanent type of savings than are the other [components of] M2. I get that feeling a little more so when I recognize that it is only the pure coincidence of who is managing an IRA account that is going to determine whether it ends up in the banking system or someplace else. The distinction is pretty arbitrary as to whether a particular IRA ends up as a component of M2 or in a money market instrument of some kind or another. And I would at least raise the question of whether they belong in M2 at all. But if we have them in M2, they alone could create some real problems in terms of the upper limit of the target for M2. That would lead me a bit in the direction that Governor Gramley suggested yesterday even though I am hesitant, to put it mildly, to change any of these targets, although they were only tentatively agreed upon by the Committee in July. That is it.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): contradiction
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. BALLES.
text: It could be increased liquidity preference in a period of uncertainty. The more I mull over why it's going on, the more I just have a hunch that we may be asking the wrong question in a sense. I recall a debate around this table some years ago in the mid-1970s--I can't remember exactly when it was, perhaps 1976 or 1977--when we were agonizing over an excessively rapid and unexpected rate of monetary growth and why it was occurring. I think it was Chairman Burns who said at that time: Well, it's very simple; we've been putting too many reserves into the market. And I wonder if that isn't really the basic answer when everything is said and done. 

MR. AXILROD. "That is the question, mostly, that we are trying to answer."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. FORD.
text: A number of them, like Larry Klein, were very sympathetic to us. But it was remarkable how many--not just the standard old line monetarists--had questions about this. The way it came out from some of them was this: If you say there will be wider variations in interest rates, should you try to control the [monetary growth] path in some way to take some of the fluctuation out? Implicit in that statement is the hidden assumption that we're now successfully operating counter-cyclically in fine-tuning the economy, and they question whether that can be so. I guess the question is: Do you really feel that you're working against the swings in rates so that if we somehow had smoothed the [monetary growth] path it would have produced more violent fluctuations in interest rates than we've seen? 

MR. STERNLIGHT. "There could be that kind of cycling, but that might be a minor variation around the more underlying trend we're trying to achieve."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MS. TEETERS.
text: And that's what I assume the Congress will be working on rather than trying to remove the other part of it. I think it's time to relax [policy] and to reliquify the economy. It's time to permit corporations to fund their securities loans. It's time just to say we are finished one job and to start the next one. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Mr. Black. 

MR. BLACK. "It seems to me that there are two main reasons why rates are staying up."

Full utterance: Mr. Chairman, I think everyone agrees that the economy is in a bad predicament now and that lower interest rates are a prerequisite for any kind of sustained recovery. But where we have the point of difference is how we think we ought to get those rates down. It seems to me that there are two main reasons why rates are staying up. The first would be the uncertainties concerning what might be done by Congress on the present budget impasse; I guess all we can do in that area is to jawbone, as I think you've done very effectively from time-to-time, with the rest of us chiming in whenever we could. But the second reason is a fear that the System at some point may be forced toward some materially easy monetary policy. And against this background, I think the best way to reduce inflationary pressures, and with them interest rates, is to get these monetary aggregates back within the target ranges and keep them there for the balance of the year. So, I think we ought to stay with "B," which we adopted last time. But I would regard that "B" part on M1 as the upper limit. I would be glad to accept maintaining the language in the directive about a lower rate or an actual decline in M1, if that's accompanied by substantially reduced pressures in the money markets. I have two other points. The first is that I would be a little concerned about leaving in the sentence in the directive regarding M2--the second sentence in the operational paragraph. We included that last time mainly to cover the effects of the tax-related flows into M1, and we are now well past the tax date. And I wouldn't want to see M1 come in above the "B" specifications even if M2 were on path. The second point is that paragraph 10 in the Bluebook states that the staff's best estimate is that an $800 million borrowing level would be compatible with "B." The borrowing level in the first four-week period of our intermeeting period averaged $1.3 billion. And since the demand for borrowings is notoriously volatile, I think it would be a little better to start out a bit more conservatively. For lack of a better figure, I would throw out $1.1 billion. And then I'd have a clear understanding with the staff that borrowing would be adjusted down quickly if new data suggested that we had greater-than-anticipated weakness in the money supply and a lessening of pressures in the money market.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): contradiction
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: I have said upon a number of occasions that the way we have lost this game is by staying with an expansionary policy too long during a recovery period. That statement also says the mistakes were not made at the bottom of a recession. 
speaker: MR. BLACK.
text: Okay. Well, it may be a delay of timing, but I'm not going to quarrel with you. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: It's rather significant. 

MR. BLACK. "But maybe I am dead wrong on this."

Full utterance: My feeling is that we can't pay too much attention to the aggregates right now but that we ought to nudge the federal funds rate [up] a little as a way of showing that we're concerned about that. I don't expect that to have much effect. But I think it could keep us from having to move [rates] a whole lot later on, which really would worry me a great deal. But maybe I am dead wrong on this. It may be that the aggregates will come into line very beautifully and we will have no worries. That would be the best of all possible worlds. But that's not what I think is the most likely case. So, I'm opposed to what you have suggested here, although I understand full well how a reasonable person could be expected to--

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): entailment
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. MORRIS.
text: I don't see how we can quantify this without causing more trouble than we have already. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: We could say, "taking account of the distortion of new accounts." I'm not so sure that's so bad. 
speaker: MR. PARTEE.
text: That does take care of it, technically. That would take care of it. 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "Lesser restraint would be acceptable in the context of appreciable slowing of growth in the aggregates to or below the paths implied by the long-term ranges, taking account of the distortions related to the introduction of new accounts."

Full utterance: "Lesser restraint would be acceptable in the context of appreciable slowing of growth in the aggregates to or below the paths implied by the long-term ranges, taking account of the distortions related to the introduction of new accounts."

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Well, unless somebody has a strong feeling, we might as well just leave it where it was. Are there any other comments? I guess it's clear in everybody's mind what we mean to convey by this. In fact it's pretty plain, I think, in the main. 
speaker: MR. PARTEE.
text: It is. 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "Lesser restraint would be acceptable in the context of appreciable slowing of growth in the aggregates to or below the paths implied by the long-term ranges, taking account of the distortions related to the introduction of new accounts."

Full utterance: Shall I read it again just to make sure? "For the more immediate future, the Committee seeks to maintain the existing degree of restraint on reserve positions. Lesser restraint would be acceptable in the context of appreciable slowing of growth in the aggregates to or below the paths implied by the long-term ranges, taking account of the distortions related to the introduction of new accounts. The Chairman may call for Committee consultation if it appears...federal funds rate...of 6 to 10 percent."

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): contradiction
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. MARTIN.
text: Sure you can. Put your right arm up. 
speaker: SPEAKER(?).
text: You just did; now we're getting ready. 
speaker: MR. FORD.
text: At least use the left hand and the right hand. 
speaker: MR. PARTEE.
text: Well, in some ways $350 million is the weighted average. 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "I'll promote $350 million again."

Full utterance: It's pretty obvious: $350 million is the weighted average. We have to reach a decision. I'll promote $350 million again. Any votes?

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): contradiction
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. GUFFEY.
text: [Laughter.] 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Shall we vote? Somebody is pointing something out. What is this about? 
speaker: MR. BERNARD.
text: The interest rate sentence. 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "We should just be putting in "all of their rise.""

Full utterance: It's not true, is it? Mr. Bernard is looking at the last sentence of the boilerplate on interest rates. "Interest rates rose appreciably through most of the intermeeting period but recently market rates have retraced much of their rise." We should just be putting in "all of their rise." Is that correct?

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. KICHLINE.
text: Aside from the dollar problem, we think there is downward pressure, but it erodes over time. And by the end of 1985 the downward pressure on the wage side is virtually nonexistent in the sense that we think an unemployment rate of 7 percent is near the top end of what is "full employment." 
speaker: MR. TRUMAN.
text: Part of the point here is that the dollar's earlier rise brings forward some of the price pressures in the wage/price dynamics that we would get later. So, therefore, just the fact that you have those price pressures tends arithmetically to hold down some of the prices in the short run and removal of that gives you somewhat of an uptick. That's why, at least measured off the consumer price index, you get that tilting up. 

MR. PARTEE. "I thought there was supposed to be a lag of 6 months or so."

Full utterance: The other thought I had as I looked at this particular chart is that I don't see much delay in the price effect of the alternative projection--that is, the one where you have the dollar falling to a hundred by the fourth quarter of 1984. It seems as if the maximum first difference price effect appears almost at the same time. I thought there was supposed to be a lag of 6 months or so.

Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN SOLOMON.
text: I think it's the weekly they get. 
speaker: MR. STERNLIGHT.
text: Just the weekly report goes to the Treasury. 
speaker: MR. PARTEE.
text: And, of course, the Greenbook. 
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN SOLOMON.
text: What specifically would you propose to restrict, Nancy? 
speaker: MS. TEETERS.
text: I would restrict them from the Greenbook because in the past we have had some distinct and fairly specific leaks of the contents of the Greenbook. 

CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. "I don't know if anybody else has a different recollection."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MS. TEETERS.
text: We were legislatively instructed not only to watch the aggregates but interest rates, real growth, inflation, and unemployment. And the sentiment on the Hill is toward managing the real economy, not the monetary aggregates, at the present time. I agree with Tony. If we go back to emphasis on M1 and put it up front and at the beginning of the road, we could create very unstable conditions in the economy. And interest rates will be transferred into the economy. 

MR. GRAMLEY. "I don't think anybody's--"


Opinion: ambiguous
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. CORRIGAN.
text: I understand that. But the point I wanted to make was more that the basic purpose of this directive, as I see it, is that it's a framework for a continuity and a discipline in the policy process. I don't want to diminish all the current problems but I don't want to see that lost with an endless string of adjectives and qualifiers either. 
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN SOLOMON.
text: So what are you saying? 
speaker: MR. CORRIGAN.
text: I'm saying [this is] fine, but let's not lose sight of what this really is. 

VICE CHAIRMAN SOLOMON. "But I thought the practical implication of what you were saying was that you don't want the qualifier "only" inserted, which we didn't have in the previous directive."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN SOLOMON.
text: You don't read it that way, I guess. 
speaker: MR. GUFFEY.
text: Tony, I would just rebut that by saying it's a monitoring range now that we've had very little experience with. We elevated M1 at the last meeting to a higher position, equal to M2 and M3. And we have not elevated the debt aggregate to that position. As a result, if we're still experimenting with it, let's experiment with it by raising it to be somewhat more consistent, with the thought of dropping it in the '85 presentment that the Chairman will make at the same time he talks about '84. 

MR. CORRIGAN. "I'd go one step further even than Tony."

Full utterance: I'd go one step further even than Tony. I'd be troubled by raising that credit range, particularly on the grounds of raising it because of mergers and leveraged buyouts. It seems to me that that's tantamount to sanctioning a pattern of financial behavior that is going to get us in trouble sooner or later. If we're going to raise it, raise it. But I would not say that we're going to raise it because we have all these damned leveraged buyouts. That seems to me to be just bad policy.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: I'm not going to say it just that way, I don't think. I might say that as I look at the situation with the economy moving the way it is and the inflationary risks, yes, there's a possibility we might have to tighten. 
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN SOLOMON.
text: Particularly since you guys aren't doing anything on the deficit! 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Particularly since you guys aren't doing anything on the deficit--and as I evaluate the economy--I don't see great prospects for much easing. I might well say that. 

MR. GRAMLEY. "I would hope you would."

Full utterance: I would hope you would.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): entailment
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: If there are no widespread objections to that, we will proceed. We've had a very strange exchange market during this period, as Mr. Cross has described, and he rationalized as best he could why the dollar is so strong. It's not so clear why it's so strong against declining interest [rates], weaker economic activity, and several developments indicating an easier Federal Reserve policy, all of which in days of yore--like two months ago--would have sent the dollar down. They don't seem to have any effect right now. 

MR. CROSS. "It is amazing how much the attitudes [have changed]; everybody seems to talk about what a good thing the dollar is to get into these days."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. BLACK.
text: And I think that means that our procedures are pretty faulty. I doubt that I would end up with the same recommendation as Frank but I certainly do endorse his idea. In view of all these unexpected things that have happened this year, our control mechanism leaves a lot to be desired and I think we can improve it. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Mr. Corrigan. 

MR. CORRIGAN. "It seems to me that all of these fine arguments that Mr. Axilrod and others make about M1 really come down to the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin."

Full utterance: From my perspective what we have seen here over the past several weeks, and indeed months, has been something that I would consider an orderly adjustment in policy and interest rates and so on. There was at least a fleeting moment when I thought it might become a little messy but that did not materialize. In the broad context of the situation that we are looking at, I would not be troubled if interest rates went down a bit more in a context not unlike what Tony spoke about earlier. But let me turn to that in a minute. My view of the economy is a little different from many others. That is a factor in my thinking. But I would also caution against too much of a reaction to M1. We have been through M1 problems and we are going to go through them again. It seems to me that all of these fine arguments that Mr. Axilrod and others make about M1 really come down to the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I don't know how many. I do know that seasonal adjustment factors alone can make a big difference. We have looked at these data using a seasonal adjustment technique that's very respectable--I don't think it's any better than any others but it's very respectable--and it produces almost a $7 billion increase in the money supply from the first week of June to the second week of October rather than a decline.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): contradiction
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. PARTEE.
text: You considerably restock the car inventories and durable goods inventories and, therefore, that looks sort of high. Even for the poor state and local governments, who have been spending at a very modest rate, your chart at the bottom shows their surplus dropping off to nothing in the projection period. So I tend to get the impression looking through this--and I realize it is very dangerous--that a stall is quite conceivable, particularly if one takes Mr. Truman's adverse line on imports, which is closer to what I would have expected than the one that the staff projected as their central tendency. I tend to be persuaded by this presentation that the economy is really pretty weak. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: Governor Martin. 

MR. MARTIN. "I am aware that it is necessary for the staff in its presentation of materials to make an assumption about [money growth for] the rest of 1985 and for 1986."


Opinion: no