Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. MORRIS.
text: The banks apparently are planning to price this new service of automatic transfers fairly expensively. If they stick to this, I think automatic transfers are going to kick off with something like the gait of a large turtle. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN MILLER.
text: Thanks, Frank. Larry, you not only drew the clean-up position on the circle this morning, but alphabetically you do too. It would not be inappropriate, nonetheless, to stay within the time limit. 

MR. ROOS. "I might point out that on page 7 of the staff's projections for M1 growth, either alternative A or B would indicate nearly a 2 percentage point drop between the fourth quarter of '78 and the first quarter of '79 in aggregates growth, which I submit would lead to recession."

Full utterance: Mr. Chairman, there is an advantage to being at the end of the batting order because you can sense a certain consensus of the points of view that emerge from the opinions that were stated. First of all, as far as this short-term scenario is concerned, I think the die is pretty well cast. I would be for alternative B or better--by better I mean lower aggregates growth [ranges]. But I would like to make a suggestion and try it on for size, if I may, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me that there is at least a majority consensus within this group that inflation is a problem and that it would be desirable, if possible, to attempt to slow growth in the aggregates without causing a recession. I think even the most maverick of us would be resistant to anything that would lead to recession. I might point out that on page 7 of the staff's projections for M1 growth, either alternative A or B would indicate nearly a 2 percentage point drop between the fourth quarter of '78 and the first quarter of '79 in aggregates growth, which I submit would lead to recession. I certainly would oppose that. However, I think our next big decision point is at our meeting next month when we set the yearly targets. Assuming that most of us think that it is important to try to slow aggregates growth without recession, I wonder what would be accomplished or not accomplished, Mr. Chairman, if you were to ask each of us to address ourselves in writing--and not more than two pages of writing--to how we feel aggregates growth might be slowed without causing a recession. Certainly, some of us might say it can't be done. Then at least we would state in writing that we don't think growth in the aggregates can be reduced without causing these other severe consequences. There are some of us who think that there is a simple and feasible way to do it. So I just wonder if we couldn't spend a few minutes strategizing rather than getting right into the numbers game at our next meeting. I think this might be accomplished by attempting, with our research people, to put down in two pages or less [our thoughts on this issue]. This would at least cause us to address ourselves to what I think are the fundamental concerns of all of us. I think we tend to miss that target when we get into discussing 8-1/2 versus 9, or 3-1/2 versus 4. I'd like to see next month, unless this is a totally irresponsible suggestion, each of us come forth in summary fashion with how we might address the long-term future--at least the aspect of whether we can reduce aggregates growth without causing recession.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): entailment