kakeith406/op-fed huggingface dataset:
Prior discussion:
speaker: MS. LOVETT.
text: When the market was anticipating the move, I think most of the expectations were for 25 basis points. Some of that got built into the rate structure yesterday; I think by the time the day was over about 80 percent reflected that a 1/4 point move might occur today. This morning's numbers on the January employment situation may have moved some of that pricing back out of the market. So, certainly a move of 50 basis points would have to be reflected in the market. Since 25 basis points is not fully in there now, the next 25 basis points would clearly result in some rate back up; rates would have to adjust much more than they have. 

MR. SYRON. "As Larry Lindsey said, controlling prices is a mechanism for doing that."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. LAWARE.
text: I think we have to make an announcement. I don't think we really have any choice on that. I think the precedent has been set now and it would be very difficult to avoid an announcement at this particular meeting. So I think something has to go out. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Governor Lindsey. 

MR. LINDSEY. "However, I strongly, avidly am against asymmetry."

Full utterance: Mr. Chairman, I agree with "B" for the reasons you indicated. However, I strongly, avidly am against asymmetry. My reasons are twofold. First of all, if we look at our four moves to date this year, the most efficient ones with regard to the move in the long rate relative to the move in the short rate were in May and in March, when we moved at a meeting. In fact, we had bond market rallies when we moved at a meeting. The next least efficient was in February, which was our first move, when we moved at a meeting. The most inefficient, the only one in which we actually had a bond market selloff, was in April on our surprise move--a surprise in the sense that it was not taken at an announced FOMC meeting. I don't think the market likes surprises; I think moving between meetings will buy us nothing; and it will cost us something on the long end of the market. Second, the question comes up on what data we should move. I don't think we want to move on employment reports (a) for the reason Jerry Jordan mentioned and (b) for the reasons you gave. You commented on just how inefficient and unclear the employment report data are; they are lousy in this respect. We don't know how to interpret them and we should not move on their release. With regard to moving on a price number, I have to agree with Jerry Jordan's assessment that, even though I would tend to be very concerned, I would want to wait probably for two bad numbers before I drew any certain conclusions. For example, you stated in the past that the homeownership component could move suddenly and that would bias the number. I cannot imagine a single number that would cause me to want to move between meetings, given the inefficient results we have seen to date on our past four moves. The only reason given for doing it is--your phrase was--to maintain the notion in the marketplace. Well, in fact, the marketplace isn't going to know anything about it until after the next meeting was over. And given that, based on current expectations, we probably are going to move at the August meeting--and I agree with your analysis completely--I see absolutely nothing to be gained and quite a bit to be lost, by an intermeeting move.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): contradiction
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: [Laughter] 
speaker: MR. MOSKOW.
text: Okay. If that is the case, then the second question I have is whether we have explored both within the Committee and with those in the Congress who are so interested in this area other ways that we could be more open. I agree that we should have a policy of openness unless it is going to interfere with our deliberative process. Have we explored other options? 

CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. "It is an issue that could freeze our discussions at some point."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. PRELL.
text: In fact, what we were doing was recognizing something that I think you raised at the last meeting about how high the real short-term rate should be expected to be over the longer run and whether we felt that 3 percent, or wherever the real rate is, was the sustainable rate. I noted then that if we looked out several years that would become a relevant consideration. I said that we felt it was higher than the longer-run equilibrium or natural rate and that in prior Bluebook simulations we had introduced a downward tilt. Since we were going out a bit further with the Bluebook simulations and we were building in a somewhat more substantial fiscal consolidation, we felt that it would be appropriate for us to introduce that into this forecast. So, that's how that should be interpreted. 

MR. JORDAN. "Okay, and I have absolutely no problems with that."

Full utterance: Okay, and I have absolutely no problems with that. I do still have a little problem with the references to bond markets being adaptive. It's like saying: If the bond market rallies enough, we don't have to lower the funds rate, and that gives me a little problem. But let me hold that for a second. The Greenbook says: "We have introduced a downward tilt in the funds rate. This decline in rates, though, should not be interpreted as implying any impetus to aggregate demand," meaning that this downward movement would equilibrate. I can read that statement to say also that because the natural Wicksellian rate or some equilibrium real rate has moved down, failure to move down the nominal rate would be a de facto more restrictive policy stance.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. KELLEY.
text: Second. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Without objection. Let's now move on to the economic situation. Are you going to use the big screens for your presentation? 
speaker: MR. STOCKTON.
text: I'm not going to inaugurate the screens. 

CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. "I'm disappointed."

Full utterance: I'm disappointed. We have new technologies here that enhance the economic outlook, I do believe.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MS. YELLEN.
text: From that perspective, current policy is not overwhelmingly tight, but certainly a further downward adjustment of 25 basis points would still leave us well within the range of our past behavior. It would not be a major move inconsistent with what we have done before. Again, that would not represent an opportunistic approach, but one designed to bring inflation down. So, I certainly support this move. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Governor Kelley. 

MR. KELLEY. "With the inflation outlook as good as it is for the near and intermediate terms, all of this leaves us with room to move, and I support your recommendation as an insurance policy."

Full utterance: Mr. Chairman, I agree with those who feel that the economy is probably all right, but I also think that the downside risks clearly are elevated. I also believe that it is quite likely that the equilibrium federal funds rate is lower than it was earlier. Consequently, a somewhat lower rate is not inconsistent with what the Committee's goals have been all along and will continue to be. With the inflation outlook as good as it is for the near and intermediate terms, all of this leaves us with room to move, and I support your recommendation as an insurance policy.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: yes
Stance toward easing (NLI): contradiction
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Don't they tell you what average lead times are or can be assumed to be? 
speaker: MR. STOCKTON.
text: Mr. Chairman, our forecast shows an expectation of higher poultry prices showing through to the retail level more fully by the summer. By late fall or early winter, we would expect to see the higher hog prices show up as increased pork prices in grocery stores. Higher cattle prices would show up early next year. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: That is what I was going to say--that you can make an assumption. 

MR. PRELL. "Whereas, a couple of months ago, we saw the risks that herds would be cut back, the anecdotal evidence suggests that this process is now under way."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN MCDONOUGH.
text: In any event, I think there is a reasonable likelihood that we will decide at the next meeting that we have enough information to warrant a tightening move at that time. Therefore, those who share my view that price stability is what we do for a living because it is the road to sustained economic growth have to remember that we are not talking about whether the infidels are replacing the zealots or even whether we are a group of more or less tough-minded people. All the Chairman is recommending, which I very firmly endorse, is that we recognize that we do not know enough to make a firm decision at this point, but we do know enough so that our watching has to be particularly attentive. Therefore, an asymmetric directive toward firming is appropriate. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: President Broaddus. 

MR. BROADDUS. "A decisive move like this would tend to reduce uncertainty in financial markets and elsewhere about the ultimate extent of the tightening we might be contemplating."

Full utterance: Mr. Chairman, I have not yet had the opportunity to read Governor Yellen's paper, which I look forward to doing, But not having read it, I am reluctant at this point to deemphasize what you refer to as the "old model." It seems to me that the information we heard yesterday suggests that the economy is currently robust, with the risks dominating on the up side rather than the down side. I think it is instructive, as was pointed out this morning, that even if the Greenbook baseline projection materializes through 1997 with no change in policy in 1996 and 1997, the Bluebook analysis still says that an upward correction of 50 basis points, maybe more, is going to be needed to contain inflation in the longer term. Moreover, in the Bluebook discussion of short-run alternatives, the point is made that if we want to tilt inflation down, we may have to raise the federal funds rate "considerably"--I believe that is the term used--or by more than 1/4 percentage point before the end of this year. With these considerations in mind, I think the case for a tightening of policy today is a strong one. I personally believe that a solid case can be made for an increase of 50 basis points in the federal funds rate. If we were to do that, I believe there would be a credibility benefit that could be substantial. A decisive move like this would tend to reduce uncertainty in financial markets and elsewhere about the ultimate extent of the tightening we might be contemplating. We could announce that we expected a midcourse correction like this to bring the economy back to a sustainable longer-term growth path with declining inflation, and that might help to reduce the potential reaction in financial markets. I could support such a move, but I realize that that may not be an option today. In any event, I think that a move of at least 1/4 point is necessary. The key thing we need to do now is to reaffirm our disinflationary credentials by reversing the two moves we made last winter.

Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: SPEAKER(?).
text: [Laughter] 
speaker: MR. LINDSEY.
text: Let us think about the Indian rupee or the Chinese renminbi. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: These are repurchases involving U.S. Treasury securities. 
speaker: MR. LINDSEY.
text: All right, let us pick the case of a repurchase agreement with China. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: In dollars. 

MR. LINDSEY. "We viewed that as a long time, and we certainly did not want to go beyond a year."

Full utterance: In dollars. Let us think about the odds that the transaction would be used to prevent systemic contagion to the U.S. banking system versus the odds that it would be used for domestic political considerations because the Chinese are selling us too many shirts or whatever it is. Do you want to give me the odds on that? I know which way it is going to come out. The only place where I think the issue gets really difficult is with the yen, which does serve as a true world store of value currency. Even in that case, it can still be used for domestic political considerations. So, I think we have to draw the net very tightly on countries with which we will undertake to do these transactions. I believe the way to think of this is in terms of the probability that we may need to intervene for good reasons versus purely domestic political considerations. The second issue is one of duration. I do not remember any discussion of this although, Bill, you did allude to it. We could have a two-day reverse repo or a three-day reverse repo, but if we renew it 100 times, it suddenly becomes what I would call a real extension of credit. I would suggest that we think hard about that issue; that would be one of the clearer lines in the sand that we would have to draw. I remember in our discussion of the Mexican bailout that we all knew we were going a bit out on a limb for a year. We viewed that as a long time, and we certainly did not want to go beyond a year. If we are going to focus on this and we want to avoid the appearance of an extension of credit, I would think that the duration has to be a lot less than a year. Maybe it should be a matter of weeks.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. FISHER.
text: I am not saying that the amount of the bids is always double, but that is rather common. The amount of dealer bids for financing is actually a very helpful piece of information in assessing the amount of reserves we think we may need to inject. As we have focused increasingly on day-to-day operations because of the much reduced operating balances and related uncertainty, the size of dealer bids has become a variable of growing importance. I accept in principle that it would be better to announce the size of intended System operations, but that makes me somewhat uncomfortable because I like to see the dealers' appetite as an indicator that may lead me to shade the size of the operation one way or another. In my view, announcing the size of the contemplated operation becomes problematic. 

MR. BOEHNE. "That seems like a reasonable tradeoff."

Full utterance: That seems like a reasonable tradeoff. If you are planning to go in earlier, and I presume this is just a way station to entering the market still earlier as more information becomes available, that opens up the possibility, or maybe the likelihood, that you can come into the market more than once during the day.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. HOENIG.
text: So I have to wonder if some small increase in the federal funds rate might not be wise. I see the desirability of some tightening not just as an insurance policy against increasing inflation but as a further step toward price stability where the tradeoffs between recession and inflation are less dangerous in my opinion. We may have an opportunity here, if not now then at some time in the near future, to move toward price stability if we do it carefully. In my view, that is one of the objectives in addition to preventing higher inflation that we should consider as we contemplate policy in the future. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: President Stem. 

MR. STERN. "Secondly, if there is a NAIRU, it bounces around a lot."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. HOENIG.
text: In earlier discussions, I have expressed some sympathy with what President Parry was talking about regarding announcements because I believe more information is of value. However, like others, I think that if we release a statement on this occasion, we will have set a precedent and we will have to continue making statements going forward. I do think that requires a fair amount of discussion of what the impact will be and how we want to manage that. For that reason, I would also encourage you to prepare the markets in a sense through a very carefully drawn up speech that outlines the issues that we face and gives the market more information than would a short statement after each meeting. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: President Poole. 

MR. POOLE. "It may turn out that the message is not what we want at the time it actually appears."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: The oil companies obviously would have preferred a lower level of liftings around the world, especially the amount that has flowed into the United States, which they obviously are trying to cut. Oil stocks are not an irrelevant statistic among the numbers we are looking at. 
speaker: MR. POOLE.
text: I was just trying to get at the issue of whether the firms themselves felt that their inventory accumulation was voluntary or involuntary. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: I think the answer, and that is what the Greenbook suggests, is that there's very little evidence that it is involuntary. 
speaker: MR. POOLE.
text: Right, that's what I thought. 

CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. "In that regard, the only really interesting statistic that we have is the response to a question we asked the purchasing managers, namely whether in their judgment the inventories of manufacturers' customers were too high, about right, or too low."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. MOSKOW.
text: I would support giving her three Nobel prizes on this, but I do not think fixing it is quite that difficult. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: We actually did improve the directive once before. 
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN MCDONOUGH.
text: This directive is clear by comparison! [Laughter] 
speaker: MR. MOSKOW.
text: But I think we can do better. 

CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. "I would put it to Don Kohn to do the following if everyone is in agreement--[Laughter]"


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: I think the issue should really be how aggressive the Desk should be in its operations. The funds rates that fall out from those operations are what the market is telling us, and volatility in funds rates is market information that we can very readily suppress if we wish. I like the little boxes in Peter's charts. They are very interesting, but I think there is a question as to what they tell us. President Minehan. 

MS. MINEHAN. "I totally agree."

Full utterance: I want to extend this discussion on volatility just a little further. I totally agree. I think that volatility has been used in the past as an estimate of whether the Desk is doing a good job or not. But I think it is useful to see how much volatility there is and how hard it can be on some days for the Desk to achieve the results that it wants; it does tell us something. So I don't regard that as necessarily a measure of the Desk hitting its stride operationally or not. It is useful to have this information, and I think it tells us a good deal about what has been going on in the fed funds market, and a good deal about the hesitancy to use the discount window. I agree with President Hoenig and President McDonough that we should review the use of the discount window once again, but I must say that as long as the media can learn who is using the discount window, or make guesses that turn out to be reasonably accurate, there is going to be a continuing hesitancy to use the discount window.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. GUYNN.
text: In general, relative price movements aren't inherently inflationary and they should be permitted to play themselves out. Such price pressures would dissipate quickly as real and financial resources are reallocated, as long as our policy stance prevents these relative price adjustments from being passed on through the economy as a general price level adjustment. However, if we persist in maintaining interest rates below what I believe is likely to be their pre-shock equilibrium levels, we may inadvertently be pursuing an easier and inherently inflationary monetary policy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: President Stern. 

MR. STERN. "As far as the national economy is concerned, not surprisingly our VAR model remains quite optimistic."


Opinion: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: You have seven members on the Working Group? 
speaker: MR. FERGUSON.
text: Yes, we have seven. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN.
text: Since you've all thought about this, it might be helpful to hear from the individual members about the reasons why they came to the views that they did. 
speaker: MR. FERGUSON.
text: I think that's absolutely fine. Why don't we start with the one who is closest to me, Mike Kelley, and then we'll go around the table to the others. 

MR. KELLEY. "So, in my view, what appears in alternative I is the more appropriate presentation of how the FOMC leaves each meeting."

Full utterance: I would welcome an opportunity to review a little further the language that was suggested about the Chairman's latitude to act between meetings. I have no problem with the substance of it, but I would like to work with the language a bit more. Concerning the wording in the announcement that Roger referred to at the end of his remarks, I would strongly support alternative I--describing the balance of risks--because I think it's appropriately informative and accurate. And I like the fact that it avoids implying in advance that a determination has been made by the Committee to move one way or the other. We do not, in fact, make such a determination. We review the situation from a zero base at each meeting. So, in my view, what appears in alternative I is the more appropriate presentation of how the FOMC leaves each meeting.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: VICE CHAIRMAN MCDONOUGH.
text: So I think if we have our own 22nd, 23rd, and 24th psalms and the only thing we have to decide is which one we are going to use, that will supply the needed information to the market. That's option I. That would avoid the confusion caused by the modern version of the Fed watcher deciding that if we change this word or that comma, there are grave market implications in that change. What I like most of all is the consistency. 
speaker: MR. FERGUSON.
text: I think Larry Meyer had another comment. 

MR. MEYER. "I just had a comment on the Chairman's latitude."


Opinion: no