kakeith406/op-fed huggingface dataset:
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. STOCKTON.
text: Obviously we're not forecasting a business cycle peak. So in our forecast, we're not yet saying that we're on the downside of a business cycle. We have a growth recession in this forecast and nothing more than that. If we were to get a true cyclical downturn, I think you could obviously expect that to have some very considerable effects on foreclosures, business failures, and so forth; that channel or mechanism would amplify the downturn in this particular episode. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN BERNANKE.
text: President Stern. 

MR. STERN. "Dave, I'm having difficulty reconciling the employment and hours data for the current quarter with your forecast of no growth whatsoever."

Full utterance: Dave, I'm having difficulty reconciling the employment and hours data for the current quarter with your forecast of no growth whatsoever. It seems to me that, even if domestic final demand doesn't grow or grows little, we still have inventories and exports that could take up whatever output turns out to be, and we don't know very much about those two components for the current quarter, if I understand the situation right. Alternatively, obviously you can get a very bad productivity number, and that would square the circle. But I'm wondering what we know in particular about inventories and exports that would lead us to something as weak as this forecast.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. KOHN.
text: We don't want you to borrow. If you come in and borrow, given that we don't want you to borrow, you must really be hurting to overcome Art Angulo's or Bill Dudley's frown. So I think the more we do this, the less useful this thing is as a backstop in some sense. I don't know. I don't have an easy answer as to how to resolve this tension. 

VICE CHAIRMAN GEITHNER. "I completely agree."

Full utterance: Mr. Chairman, may I--not to preempt Art and Scott--in this case? I completely agree. It is very important not to undermine the value of these liquidity backstops by introducing stigma in their use until we get to the point at which we want to dial people back. But the decisions or the actions we took in the context of Cantor and Countrywide had a very compelling rationale. It would have been irresponsible for us, given the facts that over Cantor we have no comparable framework of supervision and that their exposure was very large relative to capital. In that context, we could do it without any risk that we were going to stigmatize the use of the PDCF because it's a unique thing. Countrywide, as you know, had a slightly different but similar rationale. It would have been imprudent for us to have had a substantial amount of securities outstanding, insufficiently collateralized, in the event that the deal didn't go through, because they were not viable on their own without Bank of America's buying them. That was a necessary and prudent thing to do. I think also that the risk was very limited that we introduced stigma to the facilities. The Barclays thing was more delicate. We would not say to them, "You can't use the facility." We just asked some careful questions about what they were doing and why, because their pattern of use was so different from everybody else's in that context. But I completely agree with your concern about that stuff. I think we must be very careful going forward that we don't do things that will alter this balance.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. REIFSCHNEIDER.
text: In some sense it's occurring, and so in some sense it's in our trend estimates. It is not as though our trends aren't implicitly taking in the fact that there's an ongoing loss in productivity associated with rising energy prices. 
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN GEITHNER.
text: I was just going to say that I thought the interesting thing about that scenario was that it doesn't really change your view about the appropriate path of monetary policy going forward. It's basically at the baseline. So even if you were to build in a material change in potential growth, because of the effects on demand going forward it doesn't affect your view about the appropriate path of policy. 

MR. WILCOX. "I lost my train of thought here."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. EVANS.
text: Housing inventories, unsold homes, are very high, and I guess I'm wondering again--we have gone over this a few times--what factors are likely to get housing advancing if it's not a sharp decline in housing prices? I'm having a hard time understanding why the expectation would not be for a relatively sharp decline. I'm translating the Greenbook/OFHEO numbers to Bill's numbers, and I'm not sure, but it seems to me that financial institutions ought to be thinking that a significant adjustment must still be in train if we're not expecting demand to pick up all of a sudden. The mortgage origination challenges are there. Or is this disequilibrium just going to sit there for an extended period of time? 

MR. WILCOX. "You know, our ability to measure where that would leave house prices relative to some notion of fair valuation is incredibly imprecise."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MS. DUKE.
text: Apparently, the impetus for both of these transactions was a judgment that the cash received from tax refunds was more advantageous than holding out for better pricing. So the outlook for lending in residential construction or commercial real estate is dim far into the future, and I would say the same thing for syndicated or participated lending. However, to the extent that banks can exit those segments, it should free up funds for normal lending for businesses and consumers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN BERNANKE.
text: President Fisher. 

MR. FISHER. "Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Governor Duke a question."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN BURNS.
text: That would be the judgment the Committee would have to reach. Normally, we move gradually; there have been times when the Committee wanted to move rather rapidly. Anyone else want to speak? Mr. Morris, yes, please. 
speaker: MR. MORRIS.
text: Mr. Chairman, I think that the differences we're talking about are quite narrow, but I think I would prefer to keep the present midpoint and use a 4-1/4 to 5 range. 

CHAIRMAN BURNS. "Let me make this suggestion to the Committee, and then we will discuss this: that we vote on a range of 3 to 7 for M1, 7 to 11 for M2, and 4-1/4 to 5 for the federal funds rate but that the midpoint be treated asymmetrically--that is at 4-3/4 rather than 4-5/8."

Full utterance: All right, thank you, Mr. Morris. Anyone else? If not, there is a narrow preference for the ranges of 3 to 7 and 7 to 11 for M1 and M2 respectively. There's more diversity with regard to the federal funds rate, but the divergences are quite small. I think a reasonable balancing of the opinions expressed would be a range of 4-1/4 to 5. I would suggest that to the Committee. Or, I think if the Committee finds that suggestion agreeable, then I would suggest that we still consider the question of whether the midpoint be treated in symmetrical fashion or not. Symmetrically the midpoint would be 4-5/8, although the Committee might prefer a midpoint of 4-3/4, and that would accommodate the thinking of the plurality who wanted a range of 4-1/4 to 5-1/4. Let me make this suggestion to the Committee, and then we will discuss this: that we vote on a range of 3 to 7 for M1, 7 to 11 for M2, and 4-1/4 to 5 for the federal funds rate but that the midpoint be treated asymmetrically--that is at 4-3/4 rather than 4-5/8. Does that shock anyone?

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. PARTEE.
text: And I certainly get the impression there's every intention to try to remedy the situation. So I think the thrust of what Jerry said--that some of the shortfall may well be made up in the months to come, and we may well get more strength in government spending--is [on] a reasonable basis. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN BURNS.
text: I think it is. 
speaker: MR. ZEISEL.
text: Some of the shortfall would be made up by legislative increase in the expenditures for the second quarter, which in a sense are already built-in by $3 [billion] or $3-1/2 billion. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN BURNS.
text: Yes, Mr. Balles, please. 

MR. BALLES. "I'd like to come back to Jerry's remarks on productivity and unit labor costs and ask him a question."

Full utterance: I'd like to come back to Jerry's remarks on productivity and unit labor costs and ask him a question. As I look at the pattern for last year, it's somewhat disturbing if it were to be continued into this year, in the sense that, quarter-by-quarter last year, the rate of increase of real final sales changed pace as the year went along. Compensation per man-hour didn't really accelerate; it was growing at a lower rate during the last three quarters than the first quarter. The quarter-by-quarter rate of gain of output per man-hour went downhill; in fact, in the final quarter it actually was negative. And the net of that was that unit labor cost kept gaining in terms of rate of increase, quarter-by-quarter; in the fourth quarter, it took quite a sharp jump. If that were to continue, it'd have pretty adverse implications for 1977. I was wondering, taking this mix of things--[output] per man-hour, compensation against unit labor cost--what you see in the tea leaves for 1977.

Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. KICHLINE.
text: Stripping that away, what we find is that the rebate was having a dragging influence later on as the effect is wearing off. So we take out--what is implicitly happening here is the underlying level of GNP is returning to its longer-run trend rate of growth. 
speaker: MR. MAYO.
text: I see, so you really have to look at the real dollars here, rather than the rates, to completely understand. 
speaker: MR. ZEISEL.
text: The levels [without the rebates] remained below what they would have been with the rebates, despite the fact that the rate of growth accelerates. 
speaker: MR. MAYO.
text: We tend to do this elliptically, to make it simple, but sometimes it gets more complicated. 

MR. PARTEE. "I have not looked at it in detail."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. MAYO.
text: If it were through commercial bank channels, we would know, but it wouldn't be that perfect information. 
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN VOLCKER.
text: It's been my strong impression that our record has not been good in getting information elsewhere. We have always taken the position--and quite often they will ask, "Do you have any objection if we operate in the private market?" And our answer is basically, "No, but we would like to keep informed about what you're doing." Any reports about what they are doing are extremely scarce. 

MR. HOLMES. "We can make a big issue of this, and maybe we should make an issue--I have in one or two cases, but--"

Full utterance: I think that's quite right; we are not well informed about what they're doing in the market. We can make a big issue of this, and maybe we should make an issue--I have in one or two cases, but--

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN BURNS.
text: Let's move on to Mr. Baughman. 
speaker: MR. BAUGHMAN.
text: Mr. Chairman, a question with respect to the inventory data. You have the impression that these data attempt to take into account the continuing shift of business firms to the so-called LIFO method. Or [do] they just kind of pass that by and [are] based largely on inventory estimates at current market prices? 
speaker: MR. ZEISEL.
text: Well, the GNP inventory estimates attempt to make-- 

MR. BAUGHMAN. "I'm sorry, I can't hear you."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. WILLES.
text: I do have one question that we find a little difficult to deal with. And I don't know whether you or the staff would care to comment. We would like to know what the best guesses are as to whether there will be additional protectionist measures over the next 12 to 18 months and how significant they will be, because that will have a rather significant impact both on output and prices. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN BURNS.
text: My guess would be, or my judgment--we will not have any significant protectionist measures in this country over the next year. Do you have a different view, Mr. Truman? 

MR. TRUMAN. "Yours may be a judgment, mine's a guess."

Full utterance: No, I, it's only a guess. Yours may be a judgment, mine's a guess. I'll agree that you're not going to see much--

Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. BAUGHMAN.
text: I found no reference there to the appeal process. They apparently felt they were rendering a final judgment on an interpretation of present law. Why does not their suggestion to us, that if we want to seek relief that it be through the legislative channel-- 
speaker: CHAIRMAN BURNS.
text: Well, why not follow both routes, which is the present plan suggested by Mr. O'Connell? 
speaker: MR. BAUGHMAN.
text: Well, why does not that [suggestion by the court] open to us an avenue of request to [the court] and give us adequate time to pursue the legislative process as compared with the time which apparently is built into the legal proceedings, if we choose to go through the legal appeal process and question their legal judgment? 

MR. O'CONNELL. "President Baughman, the language in the Court of Appeals, I think, should be read much like in a parental circumstance, where mother says, "Ask your father.""

Full utterance: President Baughman, the language in the Court of Appeals, I think, should be read much like in a parental circumstance, where mother says, "Ask your father." It doesn't necessarily mean that mother anticipates father's going to give any different answer or relief, but it's a way of mother being finished with the problem. The Court of Appeals, when it suggests you address it to the Congress, is mindful of the fact that there's nothing in its rule that states specifically "and you may come to us and ask for all the timing you need to seek this of Congress." The court is aware that its time frame addresses itself only to the certiorari petition of the Supreme Court. I don't know, and I haven't had an opportunity to examine the possibility, that the court wouldn't consider a petition for extended time premised solely on the congressional approach. I will make inquiry in that regard. The rules don't contemplate it, nor was I able to find a previous instance in which the Court of Appeals granted extensions or continued extensions beyond the 30 days premised solely on the attempt to address the Congress.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. GARDNER.
text: I've been waiting a long time; I may never get there. But still there's more to be heard; there's a possibility of pluses occurring in that area. So, I don't object to the staff forecast at all, and I think all told we'd better design our directive in accordance with it because we may have more demands for lending--more demands for funds as the year progresses. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN BURNS.
text: Thank you, Mr. Gardner. Mr. Lilly, please. 

MR. LILLY. "So we are back where we've been right along and that's dependent on the consumer."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. ROOS.
text: And I hope when we get to the next item on the agenda we will consider monetary policy and not--two years from now, as a result of an action we took today--blame [the consequences] on management or labor or the Arabs. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN MILLER.
text: Thank you. Let's see. We haven't heard Roger. Is there anything you would like to comment on? 

MR. GUFFEY. "And that is not terribly good because that level of economic activity, coupled with the inflationary pressures, is all going to come crashing together."


Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): entailment
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN MILLER.
text: I don't know whether we intended to wait for our normal reports to disclose that we had repaid. But whether we did or not, Dr. Emminger has made a public statement that we have repaid, so that's now in the marketplace. And there was no particular reaction to it, as I gather, Scott. 
speaker: MR. PARDEE.
text: Not yet. They're wondering where we got the marks. 

CHAIRMAN MILLER. "Hearing no dissent, we shall so approve."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN MILLER.
text: But I think an interim step to play it in a different way can be constructive. 
speaker: MR. ROOS.
text: Mr. Chairman. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN MILLER.
text: Yes. 
speaker: MR. ROOS.
text: Would it be in order to make one other suggestion? 
speaker: CHAIRMAN MILLER.
text: Surely, all kinds of [suggestions are welcome] or we can even drop the whole idea. 

MR. ROOS. "No sir, I think the idea is excellent."

Full utterance: No sir, I think the idea is excellent. I wonder whether you would consider one other minor change, and that is in that same paragraph--the second paragraph on page 1, line 5--putting in before the words "during the period" these words: "In view of the recent growth of monetary aggregates with respect to the proposed longer-run ranges during the period" et cetera. The purpose of that would be to clarify in the public's mind that we are targeting on the longer-run ranges and to dramatize, if you will, or at least to point out, that what we are doing in adjusting our fed funds target is being done with the view of trying to accomplish in the long pull the targeted growth of monetary aggregates. It would read "in view of the recent growth of monetary aggregates with respect to the proposed longer-run ranges..." It identifies longer-run ranges and what has happened recently [as what] we're taking [into account with regard to] the fed funds action.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. COLDWELL.
text: It's not totally agreed on. 
speaker: MR. AXILROD.
text: That affects the interpretations of policy, I think. For example, when the Committee adopted the 3 to 8 percent range, it was not clear to me from the discussion that they wanted to lower the midpoint or whether they were just saying that you don't worry too much if [growth hits the low] end and worry more when it gets to the high end. So it's the limits that got to be more important, even with the aggregates directive or the money market. So, really, I think it depends on a sense of the interpretation of the Committee's wishes, no matter what the form of the directive. 

MR. BLACK. "Yes, I would criticize our earlier discussion for that ambiguity, Steve."

Full utterance: Yes, I would criticize our earlier discussion for that ambiguity, Steve. I thought that was one issue we didn't settle, and that's one reason why Chuck and I see it so differently on the appropriate ranges. I see a different trigger point than he does.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:

CHAIRMAN MILLER. "Whether or not it would be wise, possible, desirable, or agreeable to temporarily suspend the ranges for M1 until we can find out what=s happening, I don=t know."

Full utterance: We do have a busy day and I am going to once again ask your cooperation in trying to stick to the subject matter and I=ll try to do the same. Before we begin, I want to call to your attention a letter I received from Chairman Henry Reuss about the possibility of raising the long-run ranges for the monetary aggregates. I call it to your attention because I=m sure that when I testify in July he will be anxious to know that you have received this and considered it. And, of course, our ranges will come up for consideration in July. I would also mention that I have some concern about how we establish the ranges for M1 in July as we look ahead twelve months, realizing that on November 1 the automatic transfer regulations go into effect and M1 is going to change in some unspecified way. It=s going to be very difficult to guess how to establish ranges for a measure that=s going to be drifting on a string in the period. Whether or not it would be wise, possible, desirable, or agreeable to temporarily suspend the ranges for M1 until we can find out what=s happening, I don=t know. But it=s something you might think about because otherwise we=re just guessing. We don=t know whether the change is going to be x or y.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): neutral
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN MILLER.
text: That=s one choice. The second choice is "close to or beyond" the upper or lower limits. Normally, I would prefer 27 but in the touchy situation we=re in at this time--with July being such a seasonally unpredictable month--I thought the Desk would be better served to give them the right to operate within our chosen range if they were allowed to go close to the upper or lower limits. If we get to the lower limits, we certainly don=t want to cut the rate; if we get to the upper limits we certainly are all going to be able to express our views but we wouldn=t be compelled to make a [move]. 
speaker: MR. AXILROD.
text: Mr. Chairman, if I might add: If the Committee adopts this form of a directive, the staff would anticipate providing these two alternative languages each time just as it provided a money market directive and an aggregates directive. 

CHAIRMAN MILLER. "Last month I would have preferred line 27; this month I prefer line 28 because I think we are going to have a very tough time operating--"

Full utterance: Sure. Last month I would have preferred line 27; this month I prefer line 28 because I think we are going to have a very tough time operating--

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. DENKLER.
text: Looking at the risks that are involved and at the comparative expenses of the measures that we could take, I came up with the recommendations that you have seen in my memorandum. It looks as if at the present time the most cost effective measure would be to render the Washington to New York circuit safe from interception and to defer anything beyond that until such time as the technology is better proven. Then we can look at that in any manner that would be appropriate. Right now, frankly, it is something of an unknown. That essentially summarizes the problem. 

CHAIRMAN MILLER. "It may mean that we will use other lines of communication that are more secure."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. HOLMES.
text: So if we were just barely above the midpoint of the range--let's say at 8 percent with a midpoint of 7-1/2--I don't think I would be inclined to do much of anything but wait to see what the next group of numbers showed. And as we got closer to the upper end of the range, sure, [I'd move up] a shade but not to 8-3/4 right away until we hit the upper end. But I'd make sure that we were above 8-1/2, certainly--at 8-5/8 or something like that--as best we can do it. And as you know, we're not perfect. 

MR. BAUGHMAN. "Mr. Chairman, would it be appropriate to take a consensus on what I think is essentially Paul Volcker's suggestion of 4 to 8 on the M1 range and the others as you [suggested]?"


Opinion: no